Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CUNNINGHAME DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

MONKLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF RENFREW ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: There are a number of Questions on the Order Paper that could well keep us going for a long time. However, we shall have to press on in the interests of those hon. Members who have Questions further down the Order Paper. Therefore, I appeal to hon. Members and to Ministers to keep supplementary questions and answers as brief as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Rhodesia

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now invite the four leaders of the transitional Government in Rhodesia to London.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): No, Sir, but, as I made clear on 4th October, if there appeared to be overriding reasons for granting immunity from prosecution to one of the parties in the interests of achieving a negotiated settlement I would be prepared to put an

Order in Council before the House to facilitate all the parties coming to this country.

Mr. Wall: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Rhodesia leaders' visit to America was a great success? Why will he not ask them to visit the United Kingdom? Is he frightened that they will appeal over the heads of the Government to the British people? Will he put pressure on his friends in the Patriotic Front to come to a conference which the transitional Government have already agreed to attend without any prequalifications?

Dr. Owen: It has been agreed by successive Governments—including the Conservative Government when they held office—that those who are closely associated with the illegal regime should not be offered facilities to enter this country. If they did so, they would be liable to prosecution. That is the legal situation. I cannot change that by executive decision. There would have to be a decision to change the law, and I have indicated the way in which that could be done.

Mr. Stoddart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from being a success, Mr. Smith's visit to the United States put back the cause of peace in Rhodesia by a long way, especially bearing in mind his attitude in the United States which was contradicted by the beastly action that he took in bombing Zambia?

Dr. Owen: I think that we all found it deeply regrettable that the decision was taken to make the raids into Zambia appear to coincide with the discussions—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the Conservative Opposition think that it was a good decision to raid Zambia. We consider it deeply regrettable. It has delayed the possibility of having an all-party conference, and it is certainly not something that should be encouraged by any part of the House.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that he and a number of his right hon. Friends have often pointed out in the House that we had to shake hands with Mr. Kenyatta and Archbishop Makarios. I did so with the Archbishop, with great pleasure. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Mr. Smith is in exactly the same position? Would it not be very much in the interests


of achieving a settlement if Mr. Smith were allowed to come here not only to give his point of view but to be subjected to the expression of British public opinion towards him?

Dr. Owen: One of the first actions that I took in the early months of being Foreign Secretary was to go to Rhodesia to meet Mr. Smith. I met him first in Cape Town and later in Salisbury. I have throughout been ready to meet any of the parties to the dispute. I have been to Salisbury on three occasions to meet Mr. Smith. I am not saying that we should not speak to Mr. Smith. I think that in the search for a negotiated settlement we should speak to him and others associated with the regime. At the moment, I do not believe that it would contribute to a negotiated settlement to allow into this country Mr. Smith and others closely associated with the regime.

Mr. Faulds: Is it not now clear, as I foretold when the matter was first discussed, that the internal agreement is a fraud and a failure?

Dr. Owen: One of the great myths is that the success or failure of the internal agreement will be determined by the attitude struck in this House. Its success or failure was a matter to be determined by what the people of Rhodesia thought of it, and particularly whether the initial claim, that the fighting would be reduced and that the liberation fighters would return, could be sustained. Events have tragically shown that the violence has increased. I think, therefore, that on one of the central problems, which is to bring about a cease-fire, there is as yet no alternative to an all-party conference.

Mr. Pym: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a meeting such as is envisaged in the Question would be very helpful in achieving the fifth principle?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree also that the more talk there is between the British Government and all the parties, the more hope there is for a settlement? Will he say what progress he has made towards establishing a high-level mission in Salisbury?

Dr. Owen: There is another Question on the Order Paper dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's last point.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the more conversations there are

between all the parties, the better. That is why I am not closing the door to the possibility that it might be wise to bring them together in the way suggested in the Question. What I am saying is that the time is not right.

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further inquiry he proposes to set up into the role of Her Majesty's Government and the British oil companies with regard to the implementation of sanctions against Rhodesia.

Dr. Owen: The Government are giving careful consideration to the question of a further inquiry in the light of the views expressed when the issue was debated in this House on 7th and 8th November and in another place on 9th November.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that that is almost exactly the answer that was given 10 days ago by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said then that the Cabinet was "actively considering" this? I think that those were his words. I sympathise with the Foreign Secretary and his right hon. Friend in trying to get any kind of decision by the Cabinet, but does he recognise that the House will not easily tolerate a delay which takes place again and again for party political purposes? It is time that we had a decision.

Dr. Owen: I agree. It is important to reach a decision and the House expects that. But extremely complicated issues underlie this and it is far better to come to the House with a proposal which has been carefully worked out and will stand up to the critical scrutiny which hon. Members on both sides will wish to give it, rather than to come with an ill-worked-out proposal on this very difficult issue. As has been promised, we shall explain the position as soon as we can.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important decision which is now required is one which will bring about the physical interruption of the flow of oil to Smith's war machine, and that this can only be accomplished by imposing an oil embargo against South Africa?

Dr. Owen: In strict logic, I am sure that that is true. The only other way in


which this could occur would be if the South African Government themselves decided to make such a decision, but there is very little sign of that happening.

Mr. Stokes: With his experience, does the Foreign Secretary agree that all sanctions are futile, and that Rhodesian sanctions are particularly futile? Instead of looking back in anger on this unfortunate episode, should we not look constructively to the future to see what can be done to help, in particular to help the interim regime in Rhodesia?

Dr. Owen: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, which I do not think he is, that we should look constructively at how sanctions can be made to be more effective, he has my full support. There is nothing which should give Opposition Members delight in the fact that the history of sanctions as they have been applied does not give the world confidence that they can be used as a substitute for violence. In consequence, we have seen far too much violence and an ineffective use of peaceful means to bring about an end to the dispute. I do not rejoice in that fact.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Rhodesia.

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Rhodesia.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the current situation in Rhodesia.

Dr. Owen: Not at present, but I am in close touch with the United States Administration on how we can best achieve a successful all-party conference and will ensure that the House is given further information shortly.

Mr. Winterton: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that every day that passes means that black and white Rhodesians

are losing their lives because of terrorist activities? Will he reconsider his decision, go to Salisbury at an early date to hold a round-table conference with all the parties involved and establish in Salisbury a substantial mission to assist the interim Government, to get an electoral register prepared and to arrange for elections? This is vital to the future stability and peace of that wonderful country.

Dr. Owen: It is important to achieve not only an all-party conference to which all the parties actually come, but one which has a chance of success. That will be very difficult to achieve in the present atmosphere. I have not given up hope that it is possible to achieve, but it will need careful preparation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call first those three hon. Members whose Questions are being answered with Question No. 10.

Mr. Farr: Now that the General Election date in Rhodesia has been postponed to 20th April, will the Foreign Secretary seize the opportunity that has been made available by the extra time to assist the Rhodesian Government to prepare properly an electoral register so that a fair test of public opinion may be made on 20th April, with the British Government's backing?

Dr. Owen: There is no doubt that if the Rhodesian Government wish to prepare an electoral register they have the means to do so. The problem that they face is that the level of fighting is such, with martial law covering 70 per cent. of the country, that it is extremely difficult to envisage an election that would be free and fair and would be a test acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I do not rule it out, but at present it is hard to see it coming about.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this wonderful new oportunity which Conservative Members have described is simply another example of Mr. Ian Smith defaulting even on the so-called internal settlement? Does he agree that that further discredits Mr. Smith's position at any all-party conference? Does he agree also that our own position as honest broker in this matter will vary inversely to the length of time


that passes before we set up an inquiry into sanctions busting?

Dr. Owen: I agree that it is important that we should demonstrate our commitment to sanctions and our readiness to ensure that if mistakes have been made or if acts have been taken which have breached our own sanctions legislation, the people concerned should be brought to book.
On the central issue of how to achieve a conference in the present climate, I think that it will require patient preparation and a readiness on all sides to compromise, which at the moment they are not showing a willingness to do.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In view of the collapse of the Anglo-American initiative, what further consideration has the Foreign Secretary given to the constructive suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) during the debate on 7th November? My right hon. Friend called for a permanent mission in Rhodesia, further negotiations based on the internal settlement, a contact group and a conference to be chaired by the British Prime Minister.

Dr. Owen: On the question of the "collapse" of the Anglo-American proposals, the fact is that these still offer the best framework for achieving a settlement. They are not perfect, and they may need modification and change, but they still offer the best way of bringing all the parties together. What the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) advocates—basing negotiations on the internal settlement—will not even bring all the parties around the conference table, let alone into a measure of agreement.
On the other questions, in consultation with the United States we are looking carefully at the best way of keeping going the momentum for a negotiated settlement. We are considering all the factors that were raised in the debate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his influence in Rhodesia will be greatly enhanced if he quickly sets up a full inquiry into the Bingham report on sanctions busting? In setting up such an inquiry, will he resist the temptation to have a cosy little committee of Privy Councillors and judges and make sure instead that Back Bench opinion in this House is in the majority?

Dr. Owen: I promised that there would be no cover up and there will not be. I promised to listen to the House and I have listened very carefully. Some of the points that were made by my hon. Friend were made very forcefully on both sides of the House and we shall take them into account.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The Foreign Secretary gives the impression to everyone that he thinks that he has unlimited time. He has not. Is he aware that his current lethargic approach to the problem is being interpreted by an increasing number of people as a total lack of desire to obtain any settlement at all?

Dr. Owen: I do not think that we have unlimited time. But an example of playing for more time has been the postponement of the elections which were promised for December. Within weeks of the internal settlement we heard private reports of members of the regime touring around talking to civil servants and others behind closed doors and casting great doubt on whether the elections could ever be held in December. Eventually that information became public, and some of our newspapers even managed to print it, at least in some of their editions. The serious fact that must be faced is that from the very outset there have been doubts among many whites in Rhodesia about the sincerity of the regime's commitment to December elections.

Mr. Stoddart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the front-line States and the Patriotic Front believe that action by this Government in obtaining a settlement in Rhodesia is constrained by the political situation in this country and by the attitude of the Opposition, which is pro rebel Smith? Is there any way at all in which he can convince them that this Government, supported by the majority of the House, are in a position to make a real contribution towards a settlement in Rhodesia?

Dr. Owen: The best way to demonstrate that is by referring to the votes in this House: first to the vote on the Government's general strategy towards Rhodesia and then to the vote on sanctions. The motion on the first matter was defeated by a large majority. I thought that it was wrong to launch an initiative


just to get through the sanctions debate. Too often, that has been done. I thought that it was necessary for the House to express its views and to vote, as it did. I regret any division along party lines which occurred on the first motion, but I accept that the sanctions vote was not a division along party lines. We are now taking our time to see how we can achieve a negotiated settlement. I know that time is not on our side, but there is only one card to play, and that is a conference that is successful. I doubt whether we can go through a whole series of conferences, and we want to avoid what happened in Geneva.

Mr. Luce: As it must be the Government's top priority to facilitate a test of acceptability, will the Secretary of State make it plain to Mr. Mugabe, by what-every means possible, that if he wishes to play a constructive role in the affairs of his own people he must immediately repudiate the reported statement by his party that it intends to assassinate no fewer than 50 internal African leaders in Rhodesia? Will he urge Mr. Mugabe to support the ballot box rather than the gun and to participate peacefully in a test of acceptability?

Dr. Owen: Mr. Mugabe has always said that he will accept elections. The statement that came from a press spokesman from ZANU was deeply abhorrent to all of us and I have made my views on that very clear. Furthermore, I have tried to establish the exact support for this idea. Mr. Mugabe is not in Mozambique at present and was not there when this statement was issued. No one would believe that that sort of statement would contribute to a negotiated settlement.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about relations with the Irish Republic.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): Our relations with the Republic of Ireland are close and friendly. There are regular discussions with the Irish authorities at all levels on matters of common interest, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be meeting the Taoiseach on 27th November.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Taoiseach's last visit, have not terrorist outrages in the Republic further demonstrated the need for common action against the common enemy? While acknowledging the improved police cooperation, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will be discussing with Mr. Lynch the frustration of law and order throughout Ireland by the refusal of extradition and also the failure of the Irish Republic to adhere to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism?

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend will be discussing the whole range of relations with our Irish friends and colleagues, but I can say from first-hand experience that there is every reason to believe that the Irish Government take the security question every bit as seriously as we do. We are anxious to maximise practical cooperation in every way that we can.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the next time these talks take place strong representations will be made about the continual closing of the rail link between the North and the South, as armed terrorists from the South are continually closing this link? It is closed at the moment and this is hindering emergency supplies of cement coming to Northern Ireland to keep the construction industry in business.

Mr. Judd: We naturally regret the closure of communications between the North and the South. We shall do anything that we can together to ensure that they are kept open regularly in future.

China

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's current attitude concerning the sale of military equipment to China.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Chinese relations following the recent visit of the Chinese Vice-Premier, including his policy on arms sales to that country.

Dr. Owen: Defence sales were among a wide range of political, economic and


industrial issues which I and my colleagues discussed with Vice-Premier Wang Chen. The British Government are willing to consider selling defensive equipment, subject to consultations with our allies. We want a deeper relationship with China. Defence must form part of a balanced development of our relations, covering the political, trade, economic, scientific, technological and cultural fields.

Mr. Adley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is now five years since I first went to the Foreign Office and saw my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle), who was there at that time, to impress upon him the need for the British Government to give the green light to go ahead with the sale of Harriers to China? With whom are these so-called consultations with our allies taking place, when it is well known that the only opposition to the sale of Harriers to China comes from the Soviet Union and the Tribune group? Will the Foreign Secretary stop allowing the Soviet Union to dictate British foreign policy?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman may be able to claim consistency, but many people on each side of the House might have wondered whether it would have been prudent to make that decision five years ago. Very welcome changes have taken place in China and it is now much easier for us to have a relationship with China in all these fields, which we wish to encourage. But we do not want a foreign policy which moves around from day to day. We want a steady development of balanced relations with China and with other major countries in the world.

Mr. Allaun: Would not selling Harriers to China be as damaging to peace as the sale of non-military goods would be beneficial? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is bound to damage seriously the prospects for detente with the Soviet Union? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that that is of no importance, but it is important to me and to my children, and to the whole human race.
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend recognise that it would also damage the strategic arms limitation talks, whatever NATO may think about these sales, and NATO will think they are fine?

Dr. Owen: It is way outside the narrow confines of strategic arms, which is the subject of SALT, but, of course, it could have an impact on detente. But I do not think that it should be seen in those terms. We cannot always avoid how other people might wish to see it. What is important is how we view our foreign policy and how we express our intentions. Our intentions are quite clear. They are to have a continuation of detente with the Soviet Union, and continuing relations with the Soviet Union, but not to allow any third country or anyone to dictate the shape of our foreign policy.
Part of the independent national sovereignty of many countries is a wish to establish relations not merely on economic and trading matters but also covering defence. That is part of a balanced and mature relationship between countries. One cannot exclude defence without its often also damaging the development in other areas.

Mr. Pym: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Conservative Benches are in full support of the policy to increase our trade with China? Concerning the specific sale of military equipment, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that the Government's judgment on this important matter will not be based primarily on domestic or political considerations, but primarily on strategic considerations?

Dr. Owen: It will be judged solely on overall political, strategic and economic issues. It will not be judged by pressures from any part of the country, either the active pressure of those who regard the only element in our relationship with China as whether the sale of a particular aircraft takes place, or criticisms that we should not in any circumstances sell arms to anyone. We have to achieve a balance in this, but we shall make our judgment solely on the basis of our own foreign policy considerations.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This issue can come up again.

Nicaragua

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Nicaragua.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): Although we have diplomatic relations with Nicaragua, we have no resident ambassador. Our exports to Nicaragua in 1977 amounted to about £9 million, and our imports to about £1.4 million. We have a small technical cooperation programme of around £150,000 for this financial year.

Mrs. Wise: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government wil give no support to the Somoza regime, that, in particular, there will be no military training here or advice given by us and that no arms of any kind will be made available to the Somoza regime?

Mr. Rowlands: I can most certainly confirm all the points that my hon. Friend has asked me to confirm concerning a regime which has abused in the most flagrant way the human rights of its own country.

Mr. Newens: Will my hon. Friend press this point of view on the United States Administration, which has not been entirely consistent in its opposition to the Somoza regime? Does my hon. Friend agree that it would not be possible for Somoza to survive if the United States ceased to give him any support?

Mr. Rowlands: We have close consultations with the United States on issues in Central America in particular. As my hon. Friend will know, the Americans have been endeavouring to get mediation going to try to bring some peace to that country and to re-establish human rights there.

Anglo-Soviet-Chinese Relations

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to talk with the Foreign Secretaries of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China regarding improving Anglo-Soviet-Chinese relations.

Dr. Owen: I discussed British-Soviet relations with the Soviet Foreign Minister in New York on 25th September, and British-Chinese relations with the Chinese Foreign Minister during his visit to Britain in October.

Mr. Thorne: I recognise my right hon. Friend's preference for peace instead of war, but will he confirm that the old imperial policies of divide and rule no longer dominate his Department? Will he make a special initiative to establish good Soviet-Chinese relations in order to improve East-West relations?

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend. Good Soviet-Chinese relations are of crucial importance to the world. One of the problems has been the absence of any dialogue between the two countries for some years now. I hope that we shall see China taking a place in the committee on disarmament which has newly been formed. I hope that the Chinese will start, as they are starting in the United Nations and other international forums, to take a part and that that will extend into a dialogue between themselves and the Soviet Union.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Foreign Secretary explain to his hon. Friends below the Gangway that if we now refuse to sell Harriers to the Chinese it will severely damage our prospects of selling them many civilian goods as well? Will not that be bad for our relations with China?

Dr. Owen: That is a question of judgment. I have often from this Dispatch Box had to defend various arms sales. I do not believe that one can totally dissociate them from one's overall relationships with a country and from economic and other matters. They are seen as an overall entity and are part of deepening relationships between countries. For instance, it is very rare to have close relationships with a country with whom one has a complete embargo on any defence relationship.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In his consultations with Britain's allies on the sale of defensive weapons to China, will my right hon. Friend undertake to do this on a bilateral basis rather than through reference to COCOM, which would raise formalities and a possible veto by the United States?

Dr. Owen: There are various ways of handling these problems. There is a combination of formal arrangements, which are COCOM, which are done at official level and tend to be technical, and there are bilateral consultations, which deal with sensitive political issues. I think


that one uses a combination of both in these sorts of circumstances.

Yugoslavia (Pub Airport Incident)

Sir T. Kitson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Yugoslav Government concerning the treatment of Miss Little at Pula airport; and what compensation is to be made.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): Since the hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend about this case on 1st November, our consul general in Zagreb has raised it with the authorities at the airport who have explained that their refusal to allow Miss Little to enter Yugoslavia was because they did not consider her passport to be in order. In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not think there are grounds for compensation.

Sir T. Kitson: Is it not intolerable that a British subject travelling on a valid British passport should be returned on the next plane to England because the passport officer did not think that her photograph looked like her passport photograph? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this might happen to many other people? Surely it is most unsatisfactory that, under those circumstances she was not allowed to get in touch with the British consul and was sent straight back to this country, to an airport from which she had not left, which cost her a great deal of money?

Mr. Luard: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituent, but I must correct him on one or two points of fact. It is not the case that she tried to get in touch with our consul in Zagreb. According to our information, there is no record that she made such an attempt. She was staying at a hotel from which she could quite easily have telephoned had she wanted to. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that she had a perfectly valid passport. I must inform him that the passport has been examined by our own passport authority since she returned and it agrees that there is evidence that it was tampered with. In those circumstances, I do not think that we would be justified in

making a protest to the Yugoslav Government.

Mr. Nelson: Despite that case, is the Minister aware that a similar situation took place with one of my constituents who was refused entry to Czechoslovakia—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In that case I advise the hon. Gentleman to put down a Question about it.

Cyprus

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further initiative he proposes to resolve the problem of displaced persons in Cyprus.

Mr. Judd: A British contribution of £500,000 has recently been approved for refugee relief in Cyprus. The problem of displaced persons can only be finally resolved in the context of a political settlement.

Mr. Gould: Can my hon. Friend give some indication of the Government's response to the American proposals for a Cyprus settlement, which are reported in today's press? Can he also say something about the severely practical and immediate problem of tracing about 2,000 Greek-Cypriots who are missing but presumed still alive and whose plight is causing great distress to their relatives, both in Cyprus and in this country?

Mr. Judd: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about new initiatives, and I think that we should await that. As to the other part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think that it is a disgrace that no progress has been made on the issue of missing people. There is great anguish among many people and I have witnessed it myself in Cyprus. I am sad that there has been no response to the proposals by the United Nations for a commission of inquiry which would set about the job of finding an answer to these questions.

Mr. Townsend: Has the Minister given any thought to trying to persuade both the Turkish-Cypriots and the Greek-Cypriots to agree to the return of Famagusta, a city of about 40,000 people, to the South? Would not that be a positive step towards looking after the plight of


displaced persons and a step towards a comprehensive settlement of this dispute?

Mr. Judd: Famagusta is a critical part of the overall problem. I know of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the whole subject of Cyprus, but I put it to him that we should now concentrate on finding an overall strategic solution. As I have said, a later Question on the Order Paper deals with this issue.

Mrs. Jeger: Meanwhile, can the Minister say what part the Government are playing in the Security Council discussions on Cyprus, and why?

Mr. Judd: Our approach in the Security Council, as elsewhere, is to do everything constructive and positive that we can to promote the resumption of intercommunal talks because we believe that progress will be made only when the two parties sit down and start talking directly together about their common interests in finding a solution.

Malta

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Malta in the near future.

Mr. Judd: No, Sir.

Mr. Tuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the British Forces pull out of the island next March there will be a big formal ceremony of handing over to the civil authorities? In view of the valiant stand which the island made on our behalf during the war, would it not be diplomatic to have a member of the Royal Family there at the time of the ceremony? Many Heads of State have been to Malta, but never our Head of State. Does my hon. Friend realise that if a member of the Royal Family were to go it would cause great delight to the Prime Minister, the Government and the people of Malta?

Mr. Russell Kerr: Well spoken, Prince Raphael.

Mr. Judd: Our respect for the people of Malta and the Maltese contribution during the war is as great as it has ever been. We look forward to having good and positive relationships with the Maltese people after the completion of the military withdrawal in March. I am sure

that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be taken fully into account as one possible way of marking the significance of this new chapter.

Mr. McCrindle: Will the Minister indicate to the authorities in Malta that recent actions taken by them against British broadcasters and journalists are not conducive to having the best possible relationship between the two countries?

Mr. Judd: We are naturally sad that there have been these difficulties in our relationships with the Maltese Government. I am glad to report to the House, however, that after the Maltese Government had had talks with the BBC recently it was agreed that the corporation's journalists should return and, furthermore, that British Forces' broadcasting should go back on the air.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Council of Ministers

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers.

Dr. Owen: The next Foreign Affairs Council takes place on 19th December in Brussels.

Mr. Miller: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that at the next meeting he will put forward on behalf of this country the proposition that in case of selective action against imports from developing countries there should be consultations with the exporting country concerned, but that there should be some annual review of the operation and performance of any safeguard clause?

Dr. Owen: I understand the hon. Gentleman's philosophy, which is shared in many parts of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade attended the multilateral negotiations which were part of the Foreign Affairs Council agenda yesterday and made similar points strongly expressing his concern.

Mr. George Robertson: At the impending meeting of the Council of Ministers, if the subject matter of the enlargement of the Community to include Spain arises,


will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of his colleagues to the regulations in that country applying to the repatriation of bodies, as evidenced by the circumstances surrounding my constituent? She was murdered on Monday night in Spain and her body was not to be repatriated to this country unless a large and disproportionate sum was paid immediately, a situation with which his office was unable to help.

Dr. Owen: I shall look into the circumstances of the individual case which is obviously causing concern to my hon. Friend. We have good relations with the Spanish Government, and I am certain that if there are any undue difficulties we ought to be able to make an arrangement.

Mr. Pym: When will the Government cease to act as such reluctant partners in the Community? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's attitude in Europe has made it difficult, if not impossible, to secure a satisfactory negotiation on almost anything, and that if the Government worked in a more cooperative manner they might achieve more success?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Give him a set of knee pads.

Dr. Owen: The Government are a full member of the European Community, and they will argue their case accordingly. The Government's position would be greatly strengthened if, just occasionally, the Opposition would support us when we are arguing the national case in Brussels. It is usually left to a few of the right hon. Gentlemen's hon. Friends who are opposed to the European Community to support us in our negotiating stance. We would find it much more attractive if we were supported officially by the Opposition and if they did not fall for making the all too easy criticism that comes perpetually from them, dripping away the whole time.

Mr. Pym: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his party always finds it convenient officially to support Europe when it is in government and to be officially against it when it is in opposition? Is he further aware that it falls ill from his mouth to criticise us on any questions that we may have raised about certain aspects of the European Community? Our commitment to the European Com-

munity, like, I think, the Foreign Secretary's personal commitment, has been continuous. Is he aware that we on these Benches feel that the Government, by being so reluctant and so difficult, have alienated our partners in Europe and that that is why they are achieving so little success in the Community.

Dr. Owen: I do not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman has at least credited my position as being the same on this issue irrespective of which side of the House I sit. There is a serious problem in this country in that we do not recognise sufficiently that some of the fights that are taking place in Brussels are the natural fighting that takes place over conflicting interests of member States. It would be extremely rare, however, for a French Foreign Minister to return to the Assembly in France and be attacked by the Opposition for upholding a French national interest. Equally it would be very rare for him to be attacked by the French newspapers. Yet we are constantly attacked both by the Opposition and by the newspapers for upholding the British position.

European Assembly Members

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy regarding the salary, expenses, and tax position of any directly elected Members of the European Assembly.

Mr. Judd: As I explained to the House on 15th November, we are determined that salaries should not be excessive, should be related to the salaries of national parliamentarians and should be subject to national taxation. Allowances should be related to necesary expenditure.

Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend give a clear assurance that he will continue his opposition to giving a green light to any Common Market gravy train for Euro MPs? Will he give a clear assurance that final agreement on these matters will be made by the end of this year? Or are we to assume that, if there is failure to reach an early agreement, there is a growing possibility that direct elections will not take place next June?

Mr. Judd: The Government have a very firm view that it is essential that this issue must be resolved before the


elections so that those who stand and are elected know what the terms of service will be. That is a highly relevant factor to the whole future of the Assembly. Our view is that the responsibility for a final decision lies with Ministers in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Marten: The Minister says that salaries should be related to this House, but does he realise that that is quite meaningless? Why does he not say that the salaries should be the same as those in this House and that after a year, if the Members are worth it, we will pay them a little more?

Mr. Judd: I endorse the objective that the principle should be that the salaries are the same in the sense that people will be going to the European Assembly as representatives of their country and of communities in their country. It seems right that their remuneration should be the same as that considered appropriate for being a Member of this House.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will my hon. Friend answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden)? By which final date do the Government feel agreement must be reached on this subject, after which their attitude would be that the elections were in jeopardy until agreement was reached?

Mr. Judd: We hope that significant progress can be made to finalising this matter by the end of this year. The Government believe that it would be wrong in principle to go into the election campaign before this issue was resolved.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Why should British Members of the European Parliament be peculiarly subject to the peculiar fiscal philosophy of the United Kingdom? Is it not appropriate that the remuneration of Members of the European Parliament should be wholly and exclusively the responsibility of that Parliament, in the same sense that this House would bitterly resent being told by county councils what Members here should be paid?

Mr. Judd: I think that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will realise that his view is in every sense a federal view of Europe. The Government have repeatedly explained that they do not hold that federal view. In that sense we see Members going to the European Assembly as

representatives of the people of this country. In that capacity their taxation should be the same as that applied to those whom they seek to represent.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recall sending a letter to all the existing British Members of the European Parliament which seemed to indicate that the Government had already made up their mind on these matters? Does he also recall that he suggested in that letter that we should propagate the idea of having a Members' declaration of interests as effective as the one that we have here? Will my hon. Friend, if it is not unparliamentary, care to give the House the contents of my reply to that letter?

Mr. Judd: We can certainly see about giving the House the contents of my hon. Friend's reply. It is clear that the declaration of interest is an issue of honour, whether in this House or in the European Assembly. My hon. Friend will recall that I said that it was appropriate that the question should be decided within the context of the Assembly itself.

Southern Africa

Mr Wrigglesworth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what co-operation there has been between members of the EEC in seeking a solution to the problems of Southern Africa.

Dr. Owen: Southern African problems are regularly discussed by Foreign Ministers of the EEC member countries. The Nine have given active support to the Anglo-American proposals on Rhodesia and the five-power proposals for Namibia. They have also adopted the code of conduct on employment practices for companies with interests in South Africa.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that one of the areas where the EEC could have the most influence is in helping to stop sanction busting as it applies to Rhodesia? Has there been any discussion in the Community about this? If not, will he institute such discussion?

Dr. Owen: It has been discussed informally. One of the actions of the Government on taking office in 1974 was


to hold discussions on tightening up the sanctions. I am glad to say that the Community members now are adopting a much tougher policy than hitherto. One of the striking achievements of political co-operation is the great degree of support that there is for policies followed in Southern Africa and that is something that the Opposition should consider a little more carefully.

Mr. Gow: In seeking to co-ordinate Community policy on Southern Africa, does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be of great assistance to him and his colleagues if we were to establish, as a matter of urgency, a high-powered mission in Salisbury which could be the ears and eyes of the Government and which could also offer assistance to the internal settlement and the future legislative process in Rhodesia?

Mr. Skinner: Get off your knees.

Dr. Owen: There is a Question on the Order Paper about that issue. The view of the Government, expressed on many occasions, is that at the right moment and in the right circumstances it would be helpful, and I will consider it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the attitude of his colleagues in the Community in opposing apartheid in South Africa is strong enough, because it is important that we should not make statements of good intent without following up what actually wants to be done, particularly in relation to multinational companies?

Dr. Owen: It must be clear to the House that some countries are tougher than we are about what action should be taken in Southern Africa. For example, the Danish and Dutch Governments have always consistently taken, in the United Nations and other forums, a tougher stance on sanctions. We have to balance the realities of the policy—whether it will be successful, whether it will be actually applied—and we have to take account also of our own economic involvement in Southern Africa. That is the reality that I have to face.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with our European partners the forthcoming vote in the Security Council on mandatory oil sanctions against South Africa? Will he give

an assurance that when that vote takes place we will not simply abstain, as we did in the Trusteeship Committee yesterday, but will vote against any such resolution?

Dr. Owen: The motion yesterday in the Trusteeship Committee was a comprehensive motion on a large number of African policies, and in our explanation of vote we made clear our position on sanctions. I am not prepared to give a categorical assurance that in no circumstances would we agree with a resolution involving sanctions on South Africa. What I am prepared to say is that we would not do so while we thought there was any serious possibility of negotiated settlement, particularly in relation to Namibia and Rhodesia, but South Africa cannot be given a blank cheque to pursue policies in Southern Africa, either internally or externally, which are in direct contravention of the United Nations Charter.

Economic and Social Committee (Consumer Protection)

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to improve the representation of consumer interests in the Economic and Social Committee of the EEC.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): Consumer interests are already very well represented by the inclusion in the British membership of the former deputy director of the Consumers Association and of a member of the National Consumer Council.

Mr. Cartwright: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he try to ensure that the Community takes rather more notice of the expertise and practical experience of the consumer movement in this country so that draft Community legislation on consumer issues is a little more realistic and gives more immediate help to the consumers than some that we have seen in the last few weeks?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that the whole House will agree with that view. I think that my hon. Friend will want to pay tribute to the efforts of some of the British Members of the European Assembly for the constructive efforts that they have made to draw the attention of


the rest of Europe to the essential interests of consumers.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The interests of the consumer might benefit by the enlargement of the Community to include Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the long-term interests of the consumer might well suffer because of the great damage that could be done to our own horticulture and textile industries?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not aware of any such thing. The Government and the vast majority of Members of this House support the enlargement of the Community and think that the inclusion of Spain, Portugal and Greece is essential to buttress democracy in Southern Europe.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in a Written Answer to me yesterday, whilst he was able to give the names of the members of the Economic and Social Committee nominated by this Parliament last year, he was unable to give the number of occasions on which they had attended the committee? Does he agree that if there is real consumer interest there should be available to the public in this country a list of those who attended? While we are on the matter of open government and consumer interest, can my hon. Friend say why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to tell us this afternoon about the meeting of the Council of Finance Ministers in Brussels?

Mr. Tomlinson: That last matter is not for me. I am sure that others will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question, however. Members of the Economic and Social Committee are not appointed by Governments. They are appointed by the Council of Ministers on the basis of names proposed by Governments. The point my hon. Friend raises in relation to attendance is important and deserving of further consideration.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of our debates last week on various EEC consumer measures and draw from them the strongly held view on both sides of the House that to proceed by draft directive is an obtuse way of trying to obtain reasonably harmonised practices? Will he consider the view of the chairman of the National Consumer Council that the Green Paper

technique—a discussion document—would be much more appropriate?

Mr. Tomlinson: The Government are prepared to listen to any helpful suggestion and I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said is worthy of further consideration.

Human Rights

Mr. Michael Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress the European Community is making, or the member countries jointly by political co-operation, in the promotion of human rights in the countries with which the Community has dealings.

Dr. Owen: Human rights are taken into consideration in the disbursement of Community aid, and the Community has made clear the importance it attaches to them in the current negotiations for a new EEC-ACP convention. In addition, the Nine, acting in political co-operation, have discussed human rights problems in a number of third countries, and have expressed their views in public statements or & marches to some of the Governments concerned.

Mr. Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about any response that he gets to this from the countries of Eastern Europe?

Dr. Owen: This issue has been mainly dealt with in the Belgrade conference, when the Nine concerted their position and negotiated throughout very closely in touch. Many of the violations of human rights that we felt were a breach of the Helsinki final act were raised in specific terms with countries of Eastern Europe at the conference. I cannot claim that we had great success, but I published all the results and the follow-up documents to the House and will keep in close touch.

Mr. Luce: Since it is essential that the Community should not support, particularly through our taxation system, those regimes which show a gross abuse of fundamental human rights, will the Secretary of State insist that such an understanding should be incorporated in a renegotiated Lome convention when that comes about?

Dr. Owen: We are trying to negotiate it. It is difficult to say that we should



insist on it. We have not as yet been able to persuade all the parties to the negotiation of the need for it. We have not shifted our position. We still believe that we need that provision in order not to put ourselves in a situation where we are acting illegally, and at present I do not believe that the convention gives us enough legal cover to take action to refuse aid under human rights criteria. But we need to do so. We have found the situation in Uganda and many other countries very difficult to cope with under the convention as it is currently drafted.

European Parliament

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to visit the European Parliament in the near future.

Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit the European Assembly.

Mr. Dykes: In the same way that the salary and expenses of Members of the European Assembly should be known well before the direct elections, would it not be good for the Government to press for the present nomadic existence of the Parliament to cease, since it is somewhat bizarre? Would not the best site be Luxembourg rather than Brussels?

Mr. Tomlinson: A permanent site for the Assembly is a matter for decision by common accord of the Governments of the member States. That will not easily be reached.

Mr. Prescott: Is my hon. Friend aware that more and more parties and States in Europe are making it clear that they believe that the European Assembly should not be given any extra powers? Will he spell that out to the House? Is he aware that the European Assembly's demand for more resources to be spent on the Regional Fund will lead to an increase in non-obligatory expenditure and therefore to an increase in the powers of the Assembly?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am happy to reaffirm the view which I have expressed many times before, that I do not believe that direct elections will confer additional powers on the European Assembly. We all wish additional resources to be made available to implement the Community's regional policy. But that does not imply

that greater power should be given to the Assembly for controlling those resources.

RAIL DISPUTE (SOUTHERN REGION)

Mr. Norman Fowler: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the rail dispute affecting the Southern region.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): Train services for many suburban commuters were severely disrupted on the Southern region this morning when drivers did not report for duty. The depots affected are those in the London area of the South-Eastern division of the Southern region and the depots at Gillingham, Kent, and Wimbledon.
This course of events arises from the dissatisfaction with a recent recommendation of the Railways Staff National Tribunal rejecting ASLEF's claim for payments for footplate staff in parallel with a bonus payment for pay-train guards.
The industrial action is unofficial. It is not supported by the executive committee of the union. In these circumstances it is wholly unjustified, unfair to other railmen, damaging to the long-term prospects of the railways and inexcusable in the inconvenience that it is causing to the travelling public.
A meeting between the British Railways Board and the unions is in progress at this moment which will discuss the ASLEF complaint. I hope very much that common sense will prevail.

Mr. Fowler: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition endorse strongly his condemnation of this action? We hope that the whole House will do the same.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State three short questions. First, is he aware of the mounting anger of rail passengers over the disruption of the commuter services, particularly when they face substantial increases in fares? Does he agree that the only effect that the dispute will have is to drive passengers who have any choice off the railways altogether?
Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that action of this kind wrecks not only


the rail services but the efforts being made by British Rail to improve its financial position? Heavy losses are being sustained. Can the Secretary of State give an estimate of the loss in passenger revenue caused by the dispute?
Thirdly, the Secretary of State said that a crucial meeting is taking place this afternoon which could settle the question of whether the dispute is widened. May we have an undertaking that he will keep the House fully informed of developments and that if the dispute widens he will volunteer an immediate statement on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Rodgers: I am happy to give an undertaking in response to the latter part of the hon. Member's question. Should the situation become worse, I shall keep the House fully informed. It is a difficult matter of industrial relations and I am the last one to claim that I have an easy answer. Most of all, we need a solution.
I acknowledge that there is mounting anger among commuters. I agree that the strike can do no good to the livelihood of those who work on the railways, to the future of the railways, to the travelling public and to our wish to see more people rather than fewer travelling on the railways.
The House has on many occasions expressed concern about British Rail's finances. I estimate that today's events will lose British Rail about £250,000 in revenue.

Mr. Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unofficial action on Southern region adds enormously to the difficulties of commuters who have already been saddled with swingeing fare increases? Will he resist the temptation to follow the Opposition into taking a negative attitude? Will he see whether he can make a contribution to finding a disputes procedure which is more effective and responsive to the men who are involved in the dispute?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree with my hon. Friend that such action adds enormously to the difficulties of the railways and of those who wish to use them. It is a matter which should be of concern to the House and to all those involved in the industrial action.
I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about disputes procedures.

I am sure that the British Railways Board and the unions are anxious that there should be a disputes procedure which really works. This is an extraordinary proceeding. Those involved are not striking aginst the British Railways Board or the Government. They are striking against a non-binding arbitration which nobody has yet discussed, let alone accepted. It is an unusual occasion. I hope that those concerned will go back to work.

Mr. Mates: Will the Secretary of State examine the position of the holders of season tickets? Is he aware that to commute 50 miles into and out of London costs nearly £700 a year? Is he aware that the commuter has no redress against British Rail when he has to use expensive alternatives to travel to and from work when British Rail fails to carry out its contract to move him? Is it not almost in the category of highway robbery that British Rail makes no arrangement to compensate those who have suffered financial loss because it has failed to carry out its contract?

Mr. Rodgers: We are all tempted to use intemperate expressions, but they do not help to solve the difficult problem. I recognise that those who have chosen to live outside London and to make long journeys each day are entitled to believe that they can make those journeys except when there are adverse, inescapable circumstances for which nobody can be blamed. One should not blame the British Railways Board. It would like to solve the dispute if it could, and it has been trying hard to do so.
I understand that weekly season ticket-holders will receive pro rata refunds because they have not been able to travel today. Holders of monthly or other season tickets will receive refunds or extensions of the validity of the tickets.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even at the best of times when there are no industrial disputes, travelling in the rush hour from South or South-East London into London termini is an appalling experience? Is he aware that today has made matters worse?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that in particular the South-East London network has for many years needed enormous investment to bring it up to the standards that exist for commuter traffic


coming from other directions? When the dispute is settled, will the Secretary of State concentrate on that?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that commuters have appalling experiences. Those who travel in the rush hour often do. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the state of the rolling stock in the South-East region. British Rail is aware of that. The problem is—the House has faced it before—that the railways must raise most of what they need in revenue or through grants, made with the approval of Parliament, out of the general taxation fund. There is no other way. If there is to be a great deal more investment in the rail system, we must choose the priorities—between the London and inter-city lines, for example—and we must decide precisely how it is to be financed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is aware that when I know that right hon. and hon. Members have direct constituency interests I do my utmost to help them to express their points of view. But it will help me if hon. Members will make their points as brief as possible.

Mr. Adley: Is the Secretary of State aware that an ASLEF member, a driver from Bournemouth, told me that as the miles increased from London, so the support for this strike waned, and that the familiar figure of Mr. Fullick at Waterloo was behind most of the trouble? If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for positive suggestions, will he therefore do what he can to enlist the support or the opinions of the majority of the members of ASLEF, if not all of them, somehow to get a ballot before these unofficial disputes take place so that we can try to avoid this disruption which he describes so well?

Mr. Rodgers: I am less expert in personalities than the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), but I am prepared to believe that there are differences of opinion amongst those involved about the legitimacy of this strike. I wish that I could believe—but all experience shows the contrary—that problems of this kind could be solved easily by some formula. The British Railways Board has responsibilities here and is working very hard to solve them. Indi-

vidual trade unions have responsibilities, too, to ensure that their own machinery is responsive but also effective in dealing with the grievances of their members.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all three railway unions and the management are making very constructive attempts to settle this dispute? It can be settled only by them. It cannot be helped by statements such as the one by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), which will exacerbate the situation.

Mr. Rodgers: There is much wisdom in what my hon. Friend said. We must all wish that we could play a personal part in solving this problem. For the moment, however, we must rest, though I will not be euphoric about the possibilities, on the discussions now taking place at the headquarters of British Railways.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a little odd that a large number of my constituents are being extremely inconvenienced, put to very considerable expense in getting to work and have no redress against anyone in the courts, even if they should wish to use it? Will he please bear in mind such matters when he conies to bring forward proposals for an increase in petrol tax, which will result in even more expense to those of my constituents who are unable to use the railways to commute?

Mr. Rodgers: The right hon. Member tempts me into some very interesting discussions, but I doubt whether this is the time or the place for them. I understand the sense of grievance which many commuters have and the very real problems that they face. I shall do all that I can to help.

Mr. David Young: I thank my right hon. Friend for the efforts that he has made so far in this very difficult situation. I do not think that we want to add to his difficulties here and now, but may I ask him to consult in order to discover the position of the servants of this House who provide us with literature, who sometimes come from great distances and who are dependent on the railways? May we be assured that some help will be given to them so that right hon. and hon. Members can be supplied adequately with the material that they need?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend raises very important matters which, I am sure, have been noted by those mainly responsible for them.

Mr. Costain: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that disruption of this kind each week is having a disastrous effect on people's employment? Will he make some arrangements to help to ease car parking restrictions in London in some way?

Mr. Rodgers: I am prepared to look at any suggestion of that kind. This is a very irritating state of affairs. I hope that it will not get worse. If it does, we must find a way, until the problem is solved, of minimising the consequences. But, as I said earlier, I shall report to the House if there are any developments of that kind.

Mr. Burden: I am sure that the House is very much obliged for the Secretary of State's condemnation of this action. However, condemnation is not quite enough. Unfortunately, Gillingham is a renowned ASLEF branch for these unofficial strikes. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the British Railways Board to look very carefully into the circumstances at this depot to try to discover what motivates ASLEF members there and what the future is likely to be, because I understand that there are threats of further action in the weeks to come which will cause nothing but trouble and distress to commuters?

Mr. Rodgers: The British Railways Board is fully aware of the considerable difficulties involved in dealing with the problems of industrial relations generally. These problems are not new. As we know, some of them arise from the changes in the numbers of people working on the railways and the existence of three trade unions which sometimes see matters in different ways. I am sure that all these factors will be taken on board.

Mr. Rathbone: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his earlier answers and encourage the trade union concerned to introduce into its management procedures the use of a secret ballot to try to alleviate circumstances of this kind?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that it is my task to do so. I would not do so at present. I do not think that the results

are quite as predictable as the hon. Member supposes.

Mr. Ovenden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no monopoly of concern about this issue on the Opposition Benches and that many Government supporters who represent commuter constituencies are extremely concerned about the discomfort and inconvenience caused to our constituents this morning? However, does my right hon. Friend accept that attacks from the Opposition Benches imputing strange motives to the people involved do nothing to improve the position? Will he confirm that the way to sort out these recurring problems on British Railways is to look again at the disputes machinery and see whether we cannot involve in some better way the people at shop floor level?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend has many times expressed in the House his deep concern on behalf of the commuters whom he represents. I agree that there can be no monopoly of virtue in this respect. I should not like to impute motives. I would not try to do so. If anything can be done to improve the machinery for dealing with disputes, I am sure that it should be done.

Mr. Goodhart: As South-Eastern commuters have had to put up with excessive increases in fares as well as excessive disruptions in recent years, will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of British Rail the possibility of delaying the next increase in rail fares for a few weeks, or possibly even a month, in order to give hard-pressed commuters some compensation for the disruption which they face at the moment?

Mr. Rodgers: It is an ingenious idea, but I am not sure who would then foot the bill. It is only fair to say—although we are discussing problems of those who travel in London today—that many other people use the railways in other parts of the country. I do not think that they would want to pay more to finance the sort of gap which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Sims: Is the Secretary of State aware that many hundreds of my constituents have no choice but to use the train service to get to and from work, that they have been suffering for months from


delays and cancellations and that today's events are the last straw? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the bodies concerned to impress upon them that their action, far from attracting public sympathy to such case as they may have, is having the reverse effect?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree with the hon. Member's final comment. This sort of action does not help anyone. The travelling public can sometimes be unreasonable, but equally they can be aggravated very understandably by circumstances of this kind. What worries me greatly is that this House has been trying to give a settled future to the railways. Action of this kind does not help in that direction.

Mr. Moate: What has the Secretary of State done in a positive manner, as urged by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), to try to resolve disputes of this kind? Is he aware that the impression he has given in this instance is that the Government are standing by impotently, that management is standing by impotently, that the unions are standing by impotently and that nothing is being done? Will he at least give some assurance that he is giving his attention to trying to introduce an improved disputes procedure, perhaps with cooling-off periods and perhaps even harking back to the "In Place of Strife" proposals of his own party, so that passengers and the railways can look forward to a more settled future? Is he doing anything positive?

Mr. Rodgers: Ministers ought to have a sense of responsibility about what they can or cannot do. I am not one to claim in this House or elsewhere that Ministers should get involved in day-to-day matters with which they have not the experience or specialist knowledge to deal. This is a matter for British Rail. I am responsible for the appointment of the chairman and the board, and they are responsible for industrial relations. However, the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and the House may take it that the chairman is very much aware of my concern, and, of course, he will be told of our exchanges in the House today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I intend to limit questions to those right hon. and hon. Members with con-

stituency interests who have been rising throughout these exchanges.

Mr. Macfarlane: The Secretary of State has failed to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). What precisely does he intend to do, bearing in mind that the various rail unions have threatened to continue their action over the next few months? The situation is already bad in Southern region areas, and I venture to suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman represented a Southern seat he would be using arguments very different from those he is postulating now. What does he intend to do over the next month or so to eliminate the suffering that is being caused to so many of our constituents in Southern England?

Mr. Rodgers: To say that I have a sense of proportion and reality is to beg a number of questions, but I am not trying to persuade the House that any rapid intervention of mine would immediately solve the problems. That is my message to the hon. Gentleman. If I judged that my intervention with those principally concerned would improve the situation, or, better still, solve the dispute, I would take that step. I do not believe that that is the right course today, particularly when discussions are taking place with a view to resolving the dispute.

Mr. Tim Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman justify to me and the many thousands of my constituents who travel to London every day discontentedly, but who have no option, the 10 per cent. increase in their fares from January if their wage increases are to be held down by the Government to 5 per cent.?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman has raised a separate and fascinating question which I should like to discuss at considerable length.

Mr. Rost: When will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I may even attempt to do it now. Any increase in fares must be related to the increased cost of the railways. The labour costs of the railways are about 70 per cent. of the total, and the next fare increase must take account not only of any increase in wages from next April but of the increase that occurred in April


this year. I should like to develop that theme, but this is not the moment to do so.

Mr. George Gardiner: Though the Secretary of State clearly wishes to avoid intemperate expressions, he must accept that Southern region commuters are just about at the end of their tether when action of this sort comes on top of the habitually poor service they receive even when working is, as the railways say, normal. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this wildcat action continues it must call into question many of the assumptions on which our transport planning in the South-East has been based?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not agree w0069th the hon. Gentleman. It is a difficult and awkward situation which is infuriating for many people, but I see no reason to believe that our broad transport planning is wrong or that we are wrong in the importance we attach to supporting public transport, including the railways.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that on Monday and Tuesday of this week there were two extremely important Council of Ministers meetings in Europe. We are not getting statements in the House after those meetings.
Is there anything that you, Mr. Speaker, or I can do to press the Government to bring their reluctant and rather shy Ministers to the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has done what he can, and I did what I can by allowing him to make his complaint under the guise of a point of order.

PAY POLICY

Mr. Tim Renton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the use of Government sanctions against Ford and other private sector employers who break the 5 per cent. guideline.

This matter must be clarified in the House. It is evidently specific. The Ford labour force is voting today on whether to accept a wage settlement of about 17 per cent. I understand that the men at Halewood and Southampton have already accepted, yet at the same time we learn from the press that a senior civil servant is now in the United States advising Ford of the intention of the Government to implement the full rigour of State sanctions against the company if it proceeds with the settlement. They know about it in Detroit, but we have not heard a word about it in Westminster.
The matter is evidently important. The Ford company is engaged in a £1,000 million four-year British investment programme which includes expansion in areas of high unemployment such as South Wales and Merseyside. If sanctions are imposed, Ford may well curtail that investment programme and expand elsewhere in Europe, with disastrous employment consequences for the United Kingdom.
The matter deserves urgent consideration as it is still in the melting pot. I believe that Back Benchers on both sides of the House would welcome the opportunity to debate the matter immediately in order to influence imminent Government decisions and that the debate should have preference over tomorrow's Second Reading of the Banking Bill, which could wait for a few days.
Sanctions do not have statutory backing. They are outside the law and are unconstitutional. It is surely right that the principle behind them should he debated in the House before their imposition on an important employer such as Ford. The Government have made fools of themselves over the 5 per cent. policy. The House has a duty to try to protect the country from the consequences of that folly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the use of Government sanctions against Ford and other private sector employers who break the 5 per cent. guideline.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice before 12 o'clock this


morning that he proposed to raise this matter. I listened with very great care to what he said. Although I have no doubt that the House will discuss the matter at some time, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD

Mr. Grylls: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Government to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to the Public Accounts Committee on the activities of the National Enterprise Board.
I could not give you notice of my application earlier, Mr. Speaker, because the Treasury minute was not published until 2.30 p.m. I gave you notice at the first opportunity and apologise for not having been able to do so earlier.
It is a specific matter because the NEB disposes of more than £1,000 million of taxpayers' money and, most important, the all-party Public Accounts Committee made clear in its last report that it does not feel that it can be as responsible as it should for accountability to Parliament if the Comptroller and Auditor General is not allowed to investigate and report on the various activities of the NEB.
The House, through the Public Accounts Committee, has expressed the clear view—there was no dissension among the hon. Members on the Committee—that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be allowed to go in and see what is going on. It is a specific and important matter. As the Public Accounts Committee has said, the NEB disposes of very large sums of public money, and if the Committee is to do its job properly it must know the facts.
I believe that the House will wish to debate the matter at the earliest opportunity. It has been raised on several occasions, and the Government and the

NEB have shown an arrogant disregard of the wishes of Parliament to carry out its traditional duty of controlling the expenditure of taxpayers' money. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for us to debate the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy during Question Time of giving me notice that he would ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Government to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to the Public Accounts Committee on the activities of the National Enterprise Board.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important question, but, as hon. Members know, I decide not whether the House will be able to debate the matter but merely whether it should debate it tonight or tomorrow. That is the only discretion allowed to me.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 8TH DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mrs. Lynda Chalker.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind.
Mr. Neville Sandelson.

BILL PRESENTED

EDUCATION

Mrs. Secretary Williams, supported by Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Gordon Oakes and Miss Margaret Jackson presented a Bill to amend the law relating to education And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you able to help me concerning the devolution referendum debate? Is it a fact that the orders dealing with Northern Ireland will be taken at about 1 a.m. tomorrow, if the two debates on the Scottish and Welsh referendum take their full limit of time?

Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The concern of Ulster is echoed by Welsh Members since it is clear that Scottish Members, if they so choose, could continue the Scottish debate until 11.30 p.m. This would leave Welsh Members with a miserable hour and a half of debating time, and Ulster Members would also suffer. If Scottish Members take up their full debating time, will there be any bar to hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies participating in the debate on the Scottish order? Although clearly nobody wants to enmesh the two topics, it would be helpful if some idea could be given to Scottish Members of the impatience felt on this matter by Welsh and Northern Irish Members who fear that they will have insufficient opportunity to voice their views.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the House note that half an hour of Scottish debating time has already been wasted on matters relating to the parochial affairs of the railway dispute in Southern England?

Mr. Speaker: I was about to pay a compliment to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The House is working on the basis that hon. Members will consider the position of those hon. Members who are due to follow them later in the evening. I am unable to change the business of the day, but I am sure that those who are fortunate enough to be called on the first order will be as considerate as possible about the interests of other hon. Members whose interest in these subjects is as great as theirs.

SCOTLAND (REFERENDUM)

4.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milian): I beg to move,
That the draft Scotland Act 1978 (Referendum) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.
The purpose of this order is to appoint 1st March 1979 as the day on which the devolution referendum will be held and to apply the statutory machinery through which the referendum is to be conducted. The order is made under paragraphs 1 and 4 of schedule 17 to the Scotland Act 1978. In addition to its substantive provisions, it applies all the relevant parts of the Representation of the People Acts, including the Parliamentary Elections Rules, the Returning Officers (Scotland) Act 1977 and, the Representation of the People Regulations. It follows substantially the precedent of the order made for conducting the EEC referendum held on 5th June 1975.
The referendum in Scotland will be conducted on the basis of regions and islands areas and the returning officers will be those who act in that capacity at regional and islands councils elections. I shall be appointing a chief counting officer, who will certify the overall result for Scotland. The chief counting officer will appoint counting officers at region and islands level who will be authorised by him to declare the area results locally.
The 1979 electoral register comes into operation on 16th February 1979. The decision to hold the referendum on Thursday 1st March 1979 therefore means that it will be conducted on the basis of an electoral register which is as up to date as possible. The latest statutory date for publication of the new register is 15th February 1979. In view of the proximity of that date to the date of the referendum, the electoral registration officers have indicated that they will do their best to arrange for copies of the registers to be made available as far in advance of 15th February as is practicable.
Eligibility to vote in the referendum is determined by paragraph 2 of schedule 17 to the Act and is not, therefore, a matter for this order. Those who will be able to vote in the referendum will in fact be all those who would be eligible to vote as electors in a parliamentary election in Scotland and those peers who


would be eligible to vote in a local government election in Scotland. The canvass for the 1979 register has been undertaken and a draft is at present being prepared by the electoral registration officers. This draft of the 1979 register will be published on 28th November and will be open for public inspection and for notification of additions, changes and objections until 16th December 1978.
That is the general background of the order.

Mr. David Steel: In view of the amendment passed by the House during the passage of the Scotland Bill, what will be the effect on this order and the holding of a referendum on 1st March in either of two circumstances—first, that a General Election could conceivably be called for 1st March, and secondly, that a General Election could be held on the Thursday before 1st March?

Mr. Milan: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that in the event of a General Election there must be a three-month gap before the referendum. If the order is passed today, it will set the date of 1st March, but that could be set aside if Parliament were dissolved for a General Election. A delay would take place. That is the statutory position.
Let me deal with the order itself. The general principle has been to apply the normal electoral law for parliamentary elections, modified as necessary. A great number of the modifications are necessary simply because of the absence of candidates and the consequential need, for example, to make such substitutions as
a particular result at the poll
for
the election of a candidate.
This means that a large number of amendments will be necessary to the normal regulations.
The order consists of seven substantive articles and two schedules. Article I provides that the order will come into operation as soon as it is made. Articles 2 and 3 deal with interpretation, application and construction. Article 4 fixes the date and the hours of polling, which are the same as for parliamentary elections. Article 5 provides for arrangements to be made for observers. Article 6 is of particular

importance in that it provides that absent voting facilities will be as for parliamentary elections.
The main categories of persons who may vote by post if they can provide an address in the United Kingdom to which the ballot paper is to be sent are, first, those who no longer reside at an address in the regional electoral division for which they have been registered. I hope that Scottish Members will note that this now applies to regional electoral divisions. Secondly, the list includes Service voters, unless they have exercised their right to vote by proxy. Normal arrangements to vote by proxy will continue. Thirdly, it includes those who are prevented from going to the polling station by the general nature of their employment. Fourthly, it applies to the blind and physically incapacitated, including those in hospital.
The last date for the receipt of postal voting applications is 15th February 1979 —again, in accirdance with normal practice in parliamentary elections. In view of the importance of this vote, I very much hope that all those in Scotland who think that they will be entitled to a postal vote and wish to receive one will make sure that they apply to the electoral registration officer in good time.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would clarify the point that he has just made about those who have moved to another regional electoral area. It is important for the public at large. It means, of course, the area covered by a single regional councillor or ward area. It would be useful if it were further clarified, because there is a lot of confusion on that point.

Mr. Millan: I wanted to emphasise that matter because the rules have changed since the last General Election. I do not think that everyone in Scotland is completely aware of that. In fact, until it was drawn to my attention I had not realised that this significant rule had been changed. Postal voting, in terms of change of residence, rests on a change from one regional electoral area to another. In many places, including my constituency —Glasgow, Craigton—it will mean a more liberal application of postal voting rules, even within a single constituency. It is important to make that clear to all


those who might be entitled to a postal vote.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Milian: I shall be happy to answer questions, but I hope that I shall not subsequently be accused of taking too long.

Dr. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements made for voting by post or proxy will be the same as apply for a General Election? Will he also add an eighth article asking for good weather on the day of the referendum?

Mr. Millan: I wish that I could organise that. On the first point, it is the same as for parliamentary elections. The point I wish to make is that in one significant respect the rules have been changed since the last General Election and not every hon. Member is necessarily completely aware of that. However, the rules have been changed in a liberal direction, so postal votes for change of residence will be easier now than they were at the last election—at least, in most areas of Scotland.
I should now like to refer to the 40 per cent. rule, because I am sure that the House will expect me to do so. First, I should like to remind the House of the advisory nature of the referendum. The ballot paper itself makes this clear with its use of the words:
Parliament has decided to consult the electorate".
Whatever the outcome of the referendum, Parliament will have to approve the next effective step. If I consider that the 40 per cent. hurdle has not been met, I must introduce a draft order under section 85 of the Scotland Act, but it will be for Parliament to decide whether to approve the order. If, as the Government believe, the 40 per cent. hurdle is easily overcome, I must still come to Parliament to seek approval for the first commencement order under section 83 of the Scotland Act.
In short, the final post-referendum judgment is to be made by Parliament alone. The outcome of the referendum determines only whether I have to lay an order under section 85. Obviously the House, as well as the Secretary of State, will take full account of the result of the referendum. Nevertheless, it is

ultimately an advisory referendum in the sense that the House will make the final decision.
The 40 per cent. hurdle was not of the Government's choosing but was incorporated into the Scotland Act against our strong advice. Section 85(2) of the Act provides:
If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted" Yes"…he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.
Before we can establish this 40 per cent. figure, we must first establish the number of persons who are entitled to vote in the referendum. It is the expression "entitled to vote" which creates problems, and I should like to explain in some detail how we propose to deal with them. I shall then leave it to the House to comment on what I have in mind as the best practicable course in the circumstances. The House will see that I shall not give a final view on what I think should be done on every matter that I mention.
To be entitled to vote on the referendum in Scotland on 1st March, people must be entered on the electoral register then operative in Scotland. Clearly, those whose names are not on the register will not be entitled to vote. But that does not mean in reverse that we can simply take the total number of names that appear on the register as being the number of people who are entitled to vote on any particular day. Entry on the register is certainly the basic qualification. Without it, there is no entitlement to vote. But, to obtain the number of those entitled to vote in the referendum on 1st March, it is necessary, for reasons which I shall explain, to make some deduction from the total number of names appearing on the register.
The main categories where deductions may arise are as follows, and I shall deal with them in turn. First, there are the people who attain the voting age of 18 after 1st March 1979. The register runs from mid-February to mid-February and includes the names of people who will not reach the age of 18 until mid-February 1980. Perhaps we could call those under 18 "attainers". These are the people whose names appear on the register as attaining the age of 18 within its period of currency but who will not be entitled


to vote on the date of the referendum because they have not attained that age by that date.
That means that we must make a deduction of those who have not reached the age of 18 until after 1st March 1979. That is a comparatively simple deduction to make, because electoral registration officers will be able to provide the actual number involved, but they will not be able to count them until the 1979 registers are available. We cannot do it at the moment. However, I have had the order of magnitude of the deduction assessed for the 1978 register. It was just under 50,000. Therefore, I expect the figure for next year's register, which will be accurately counted, to be of the same order–50,000.
Secondly, there is the question of deaths. The names of people who were alive on 10th October 1978—the qualifying date for entry on the register—but who have died between then and the date of the referendum will normally appear on the register, because it is compiled by reference to the position as at the October qualifying date. Clearly, however, it would be wrong to include those people in a calculation of the number entitled to vote on 1st March 1979, so a deduction has to be made for these deaths in this period of rather more than four months.
The actual number of deaths in Scotland right up to the date of the referendum cannot be known until some time afterwards. Nor can we know whether all those concerned were on a Scottish electoral register or how many people who were on a Scottish register may have died outside Scotland in that period. Any attempt to check a nominal roll of deaths, even of those occurring in Scotland, against the electoral register would be impracticable. It could not begin until the registers were available and would not be complete until long after the referendum, and even then it would still be subject to error.
However, it will be possible to make a reasonable estimate of the deduction that should be made for the number of deaths of people aged 18 or over between 10th October 1978 and 28th February 1979. This deduction will be based on information held by the Registrar General for Scotland about actual deaths in Scot-

land. For obvious reasons, an estimate relating to a referendum on 1st March cannot be made at this stage. I can, however, inform the House that if the referendum had been held on 1st March this year the deduction would have been about 26,000. I believe that this gives a reasonable guide to the deduction that might he made for deaths. By February, I shall have the actual number of deaths in Scotland up to the end of January. Estimation will therefore be confined to one month only. Rather more than three months' figures will be available. I hope that this helps the House.
Thirdly, people who are detained in a penal institution are legally incapable of voting. That means that there should be a deduction for convicted prisoners whose names are on the register. I shall not go into this in detail. An estimate poses some difficulties, but the evidence suggests that any deduction would be small compared with the deduction for 17year-olds and for deaths.
The most difficult category is that of multiple registration. That is the category of people whose names appear on more than one register in Scotland. Such people will be able to record only one vote in the referendum. They are entitled to vote at only one place, and their second registration is not an entitlement to a second vote. It is an offence for a person to vote more than once but not for a person to be registered at more than one address. There is no central check or facility for matching of names between registers. When registering a person for one address, an electoral registration officer cannot know whether that person has applied to another electoral registration officer elsewhere in respect of a second address.
Not every application to register would be successful. What constitutes "residence" for the purpose of registration is decided by the individual electoral registration officer on the facts of the circumstances. My officials have discussed the problem with the electoral registration officers. They consider that the largest categories of those who are likely to be registered for more than one address are students living away from home in term time and those living in residential accommodation at hospitals—nurses and young medical staff in particular.
The current figure for the number of students receiving an award through the Scottish Education Department and living outwith the parental home in Scotland is about 28,000. That excludes those living away from home but not living in Scotland. There are about 28,000 students receiving a higher level of grant and living outside their parents' homes within Scotland. This figure is likely to be a good estimate of the total number of students with two addresses in Scotland and could thus be taken to represent the upper limit of the number of students in Scotland who might be registered on more than one register.
What we do not know, and I want to look into this further, is the proportion of the total who are recorded on more than one register. To have two addresses is one thing; to be on two registers is another. The position is likely to differ between private lodgings, where the students are probably appoached directly by those compiling the registers, and, say, student halls of residence, where the number appearing on the registers might well depend on the diligence of the wardens in registering students and the political awareness of the students. These are matters which have to be taken into account and which I am considering further.
I turn now to hospital accommodation to give some idea of the scale of the problem there. The upper limit for those living in such accommodation whose names might appear on two registers is estimated to be about 5,000. That is the upper limit. The actual limit is more difficult to determine but it is obviously likely to be less.
I have received a considerable number of representations from student bodies, students and others drawing attention to multiple registration and to the effect that it might have on the application of the power in section 85(2) of the Scotland Act. Those representations bear out the advice of the electoral registration officers to us that double registration of students is fairly common.
There is a strongly held view in Scotland that some account should be taken of multiple registration. I am looking into this matter further. I would be grateful to hear the views of hon. Members on this problem and in particular

to hear what the House might regard as a reasonable adjustment for multiple registration.
To sum up—

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I did not intervene earlier because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might be returning to this point. As he has clearly spelt out, it is essential for every vote to count in the referendum. Since the referendum conditions of counting are intended to reproduce as nearly as possible the conditions in a General Election, may I ask whether there will be scope for a Member of Parliament or some other authorised person present to ask for a recount of the votes in the area for which he is responsible if he suspects that it might be desirable?

Mr. Millan: Yes. The normal rules concerning recounting will apply. The hon. Gentleman will see that the order provides that the Member of Parliament is entitled to be present at the vote and at the polling stations in the area which he represents. There are difficulties about observers because this is not like an ordinary parliamentary election where the parties have their own nominees. That is provided for in the order. There will be observers. To answer the more general question, I intend that the chief counting officer should have discussions with the political parties in Scotland—at least, those represented in this House—about what would be satisfactory arrangements for observers at the counting of the votes.

Mr. Hamish Watt: While we are grateful to the Secretary of State and his officers for the work which they have done in counting up the under–18s, the dead and those who are doubly registered, may I ask him to say whether any consideration has been given to those members of the community who for religious reasons do not choose to exercise their vote? Has he approached the various religious sects to ask for the numbers within those sects who do not vote? If he were to receive that number, would he divide it among the North-East constituencies so as to make the result more accurate? Failing that, may I ask him to look at the results in the North-East constituencies over the past few elections and deduct from the average vote in Scotland


the actual percentage vote in these constituencies and work out the proportion of non-voters in that way?

Mr. Milian: That is a point of detail. If people have conscientious objections to voting, in many cases they will not be on the roll because they will not have taken the trouble to register. In that case there is no problem. If they are on the roll, they are still entitled to vote. If they do decide not to vote, for conscientious reasons, boredom or whatever, there is no way in which I can make a deduction, because they are entitled to vote. It is not legally possible for me to make a deduction, because they are entitled to vote. I can make a deduction only in respect of those who for one reason or another cannot vote, such as the 17-yearolds. In the case of death, we obviously have to make a deduction. I shall make deductions in the other categories. There is nothing I can do about people who decide not to vote.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Would my right hon. Friend accept that the way in which he has outlined the approach to this issue completely refutes many of the arguments presented against the 40 per cent. proposal?

Mr. Milan: I do not accept that. Since I am summing up my speech, I do not want to get into that argument again. It was unfortunate that such a proposal was put into the Bill. I am trying to explain how it might be coped with.
I will not be in a position to make the deductions for the 1979 register until that register is available. I have, however, indicated—I hope that it has helped the House—what the deduction might have been for attainers—that is, those under 18—and deaths if the referendum had been held on 1st March 1978. These figures will give a fair indication of the order of deductions which might be made for these categories for a referendum on 1st March 1979.
The total number of names on the electoral registers published on 15th February 1978 was 3,809,212. From this there would have fallen to be deducted for the two categories I have mentioned—those on the registers but under the age of 18 and deaths—about 50,000 and 26,000 res-

pectively. This would have given a total of 76,000, to which might have been added further deductions for the other two categories I have mentioned—convicted persons and multiple registration.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will listen carefuly to any views which the House may wish to express on the question of how we propose to deal with the 40 per cent. test. Against that background and with that explanation, I commend the order to the House.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Leon Britton: I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends that the order should have the support of the House. It is right that the people of Scotland should have the opportunity to express their views on the Government's proposals. Indeed, we made clear some time ago that we favoured holding the referendum as early as was feasible. We made clear that if there had been an election in October, as was widely expected, and we had won we should have gone ahead with the referendum.
The date chosen by the Government–1st March, St. David's Day—as far as I am aware has no particular significance for Scotland, except perhaps that it will be almost five years to the day since the Labour Government came to power and announced in the Queen's Speech their intention to
Initiate discussions in Scotland…on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, and…bring forward proposals for consideration.
It is a matter for regret that there were no genuine discussions and that the Labour Government proposed, and went forward with, legislation of the kind that they did, because if they had consulted other parties they might have produced legislation that commanded much more widespread support in the House than the present legislation ever did. In those circumstances, it would perhaps not have been necessary for the Government to have a referendum at all.
In considering the order, it is relevant to consider the circumstances in which a referendum comes to be held. The referendum found no place in the original Scotland and Wales Bill. It was inserted in the Scotland Bill at the last minute only


to fulfil the panic promise made to ensure that the Bill received a Second Reading. But now that we have the referendum there can, of course, be no opposition to the date, 1st March.
The date we suggested was 22nd March. which would have had certain advantages for those concerned, as I think we all should be, that the vote should be maximised. Clearly, the nights would be lighter and the chances of the weather being very bad would be that much less if the referendum were held those three weeks later. But clearly there is no objection on our part to holding it on 1st March.
I should also make clear that we on the Conservative Benches take the view that if there is a clear majority in the referendum in favour of the Government's proposals, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, we should think it right to advise Parliament to implement those proposals. We should think it right in those circumstances to do everything in our power to make the new arrangements for the government of Scotland work well for the people of Scotland and seek to do what we could to build a smooth-working relationship between the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and the Scottish Assembly and Executive.
But I also want to make it clear that during the referendum campaign we shall be recommending the people of Scotland to vote against the proposals. We regard them as ill-thought-out, illogical, cumbersome, expensive and amounting to a serious threat to the unity of the United Kingdom. They represent a recipe for conflict, especially in the financial provisions.
The division of powers in the Act is on no rational basis, and no solution is provided to the West Lothian question, which strikes at the very root of the proposals. In our view, the attempt to produce legislative devolution within the context of a unitary State will not meet with success as a result of these proposals. Nor do they take into account any thought to the weakening of the position of Scottish Members and the Secretary of State for Scotland if the proposals were accepted.
In opposing the proposals during the referendum campaign, we shall not do so

in a negative way. We are not asking the people of Scotland simply to endorse the status quo. If the proposals are rejected, we favour the setting up of an all-party conference to scrutinise alternative means of improving the government of Scotland. We have already published, on 10th September of this year, our draft submission to such a conference. We are entitled to ask the Government in laying the order before the House to answer the following question: what do they propose doing if the referendum rejects the advice given by the Government and if the people of Scotland decide that they do not want the proposals to be implemented? The Minister who is to reply to the debate should answer that question.
We do not reject the need for change; we do reject these proposals. The people of Scotland are entitled to something better than the divisive and illogical scheme conceived in political panic and foisted on a totally unconvinced Parliament by the sheer force of Government whipping.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that in view of his considerable experience in this matter 10 years ago Sir Alec Douglas-Home, as he then was, would be invited by the Conservative Party to do a repeat of the inquiry that was done for the party and was pigeonholed by the right hon. Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister?

Mr. Britton: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's sense of hearing was sufficiently clear for him to distinguish between what he said and what I have said about the all-party talks.
The view that I have just expressed is the one that we shall put forward in the referendum campaign. As to the conduct of the referendum, we are anxious that it should be a straightforward and fair test of the opinion of the people of Scotland. We do not favour the expenditure of public money and public resources to assist either side of the campaign.
We are glad that the Government have set their face against any attempt to set out the facts in a so-called objective way or to give money to either side in the campaign. But, in our view, the biggest threat to the fair conduct of the referendum is one that was not mentioned at all


by the Secretary of State—the use of the Government's own publicity machine. Before the order is passed, the Minister should fill the gap left by the Secretary of State in explaining the Government's policy on the matter.
This is not a matter that can be new to the Secretary of State. Novelty will be no explanation for his silence, because during the debates on the Bill we made abundantly clear our anxieties on this score. All that we had from Ministers was bland statements that Ministers would speak in favour of Government policy but would give no money to any organisations or individuals or spend money in any other way. It is not as simple as that.
If it is the Government's genuine desire to persuade the people of Scotland and the House that the referendum is to be conducted fairly, it will be necessary for them to explain what money, if any, will be spent by the Government on research and back-up facilities and what money will be spent on promotional facilities in the presentation of the "Yes" side of the campaign by Ministers. Are civil servants to act as speech writers for Ministers in these matters? Are public relations officials within the Government machine to be used? These questions should be answered and we should have figures.
The Government may say that they will do exactly the same as in a General Election, but I do not believe that that solves the problem, because a General Election is quite a different matter. Limits are imposed on the expenditure of particular candidates. In the present situation, where there are no candidates, the Government are under a public duty to explain exactly how they propose to use the Government machine, to what extent and at what cost.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that the Government are not saying that they are neutral in the matter. They back the legislation. They have said so all along. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not expect the Government at this stage to tell the Scottish people "We are not giving you every indication, before the referendum and during the referendum campaign, that we support this all the way".

That includes spending money in order to put forward that point of view.

Mr. Brittan: I am saying that the Government are entitled by their Ministers and supporters, if they can find any, to tell the people of Scotland that this is a good measure.
They have told the House repeatedly that they do not propose to spend public money advancing one side of the campaign or the other. If they have changed their mind and they think it is legitimate for public money to be spent in support of one side of the campaign rather than the other, they are entitled to take that view. In that event, they should tell the House that they have changed their mind and that they think they should spend public money in favour of the "Yes" campaign although no money will be available in support of the "No" campaign. They should say that they expect to spend a certain amount of public money in support of propaganda, a certain amount on speech writing, a certain amount on cars, and a certain amount in other directions. They should tell us what they expect the total to be. If they do that, the House will be in a position to decide whether that amounts to a fair conduct of the referendum.
I remind Labour Members that during a General Election the Government machine is not used to further the interests of any one party. The Government are entitled to take a view, but they should come clean with the House.
It is also worth asking why there is an important difference in the Government's conduct of the referendum compared with the EEC referendum. In the devolution referendum no dispensation is being granted to Ministers who do not favour the devolution legislation. It is no answer to say that it is Government policy. It is no answer to say—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is muttering. If he will pay me the courtesy of listening to me as I listened to him, he will find that the House will hold him in greater respect.

Mr. Milian: I was merely wondering when the hon. and learned Gentleman would talk about the order.

Mr. Brittan: That is a matter for the Chair rather than for the Secretary of State. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman finds the arguments that I am


advancing so uncomfortable that he has to resort to sedentary interventions. He would be better off listening to what I have to say.
We are talking about the conduct of the referendum, and it is highly relevant to ask why the Government are insisting on collective responsibility. After all, in the European referendum it was just as much a part of Government policy that there should be a "Yes" vote. Ministers who disagreed with that were granted a dispensation. That is a question that should be answered.
There is another more specific matter relating to the referendum that should be mentioned at this stage. It is not dealt with in the order, but it is highly relevant if the referendum is to be conducted fairly. I have in mind the conduct of broadcasting during the course of the campaign. It is crucial that there should be agreed ground rules. No amount of looking sulky or sullen on the part of the Secretary of State will provide an answer.
During a General Election there are agreed ground rules. They apply to party political broadcasts. They relate to how many such broadcasts will be made and the conduct of current affairs programmes during the campaign. It would be right for comparable rules to be agreed for the conduct of the referendum campaign.
If there are party political broadcasts during the course of the campaign, will they be allowed to include references to the referendum? If so, that will not necessarily amount to a fair use of broadcasting time if we consider the position of the various parties that are concerned.
How is the balance to be maintained for discussion programmes? Is the balance in political discussions to be between the various political parties or between those who are in favour of a "Yes" vote and those who are in favour of a "No" vote? These are important questions and the Minister should address his mind to them rather than merely looking grumpy.

Mr. Leo Abse: Am I to understand that the Conservative Party is taking the view that in any allocation of time for broadcasts of any sort it is important that the usual channels are not used? It is acknowledged and recognised, for example, in Wales—doubtless it is the same in Scotland—that there is

a large Labour electorate that wants to vote "No". Am I to understand that the Conservative Party, in any such discussions, would welcome the fact that representatives who speak for a Labour electorate saying "No" must participate and help to make the ground rules, which I readily agree are most necessary?

Mr. Brittan: I am not seeking to specify the machinery that should be used to achieve the right result. I am specifying what the right result should be. Surely that should be that in any discussion there should be equal time between those who are in favour and those who are against, irrespective of which party they represent.
The substantial answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is "Yes". There should be room for Labour opponents. There should be room for those of all parties and of none on both sides. There should be room in equal proportions. That is the key factor. Those in opposition and those for should have equal time on the air, whatever form the programme takes. The Government should give some indication of how they will seek to ensure that that is achieved. It is the Government's responsibility, as they are responsible for the conduct of the referendum, to ensure that that happens.
I turn to section 85(2) of the Act and the placing before the House of a repeal order if the 40 per cent. requirement is not met. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the careful way in which he has gone through the various categories. We agree that it is right, first, to establish the number of persons who are entitled to vote. They must be persons who are on the register. We further agree that it is appropriate that deductions should be made from the names that are on the register for those who are obviously not in law entitled to vote.
The Secretary of State referred to those who will not be 18 years of age by 1st March. I agree that persons in that category should be deducted. I am relieved to hear that it will be possible to make a precise calculation of those in that category. It is encouraging to learn that a precise calculation will be made of the dead up to the end of January. It is right that they should be eliminated from the total on which the 40 per cent. is based.


The Secretary of State will have to rely on the assessment of the Registrar General for the remaining month. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Registrar General in good time to make a statistical assessment in the form of a paper, which should be publicly available, setting out the way in which the calculation for the month will be made, and as soon as possible to make an assessment. If there is an area in which open government is called for, it is in setting out publicly all the facts and matters that the Secretary of State will take into account in considering whether 40 per cent. is reached.
The Secretary of State gave us no figures for the penal institutions. However, I am relieved to learn that the number involved is small. Surely it would be possible to make a fairly precise estimate. I hope, too, that that will be done as early as possible.
I agree with the Secretary of State that multiple registration is the most difficult category. I agree that it would be right to make an appropriate discount for those who are not entitled to vote and those who appear twice on the register but may vote only in one place.
What should be the discount? The Secretary of State went into the various categories and talked about students. He said that the maximum figure was 28,000 but it was impossible to know the proportion of those actually on the register. I suggest that between now and the referendum a reputable academic survey should be made, based on the most recent year for which figures are available, to assess the proportion of students who appear on two registers. I do not think that that would be an impossible task. It need not be done by means of a total survey of the whole of the register for Scotland. It could be done by a sample. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to set that in hand and to publish the results.
Although the Secretary of State has the subjective task of deciding whether it appears to him that the requirement of the 40 per cent. has been met, in the last analysis that is something which could be subject to scrutiny by the courts. It is right that, in order to avoid anyone being tempted to seek such scrutiny, the criteria under which the Secretary of State is proposing to operate should be set out as clearly as possible in advance

so that we have all the figures and facts before the date of the referendum.
What we really ought to be seeking to achieve, I suggest to the Secretary of State, is a position whereby, on the morning of 1st March, the electorate in Scotland will know the precise figure, derived partly from counting and partly from statistical assessment, which is to be deducted from the register to form the figure on which the 40 per cent. is based. Then there would be no fear that the assessment of what that figure should be has been influenced by the outcome of the voting. The figure for the discount should be known in advance, and I do not think that that is too much to ask.
There are, however, other questions which can be asked now and which I hope the Minister will answer. What period do the Government anticipate there being between the referendum and the elections for the Assembly if the people of Scotland vote "Yes"? It is important that all who may be concerned with that eventuality should have adequate time to make the preparations and that they should know what timescale is envisaged. I am sure that the Government will agree that it would be quite wrong that the elections should be held on the same day as either the European elections or the General Election. I hope that the Minister will confirm that my assessment of the Government's view on that subject is correct.
Before these orders are passed, I ask for answers to the specific points that I have raised. First, how will the Government machine be used, and at what cost? Secondly, when will the repeal order be laid, if it is necessary for it to be laid? It is right that it should be done as soon as possible so that Parliament has time and an opportunity to make its decision on the issue as soon as possible. Thirdly, how will balance be obtained and maintained on radio and television? Fourthly, when do the Government intend to hold the first. Assembly elections if they secure the "Yes" vote which we shall be campaigning against?

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is no part of the argument of those of us in the Labour "Vote No" campaign to support anything that may have the effect


of leading to a low turn-out in the referendum.
On the contrary, the Labour "Vote No" campaign hopes for as a high a turn-out as possible, not only in the interests of democratic participation—and, frankly, not only out of a sense of chivalry, on account of the 40 per cent.—but because we know that at the end of the day the 40 per cent. is only advisory and that the House of Commons will decide whether to endorse the Scotland Act largely on the size of the vote of those who bother to go out and vote positively "No".
It is in the interests of those of us who share the convictions of the Labour "Vote No" campaign that there should be as large a turn-out as possible on 1st March.
Indeed, should the Government suggest two polling days—say, on 1st March and on 15th March—that would be wholly acceptable to us.
I recollect that on 1st March 1978 it was literally impossible to get from Whitburn to Fauldhouse in my constituency. There must have been similar difficulties in most of our constituencies.
I can imagine what would happen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), on the Lammermuirs, if snow made conditions impossible for voting. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) had a serious point when he asked what will happen if 1st March 1979 proves to be as inhospitable as 1st March 1978. I do not know whether it has been the misfortune of any other hon. Members to be stuck in a snowdrift. If they have, they will know what it is like. Those of us who have been stuck in snowdrifts at Drumochter or elsewhere know very well that on 1st March it may be impossible for many people in rural areas to reach a polling station.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the 1966 General Election, which was held in March, there was snow in most parts of Scotland which made polling extremely difficult?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, there was a problem and it could recur.
We in the Labour "Vote No" campaign do not desire to see any unsatisfactory mechanical features of the referendum.
If there is argument about the 40 per cent., I understand from Sir Philip Allen, now Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who presided over the EEC referendum, that an accurate statistic of the total live electorate can be worked out for any date.
This, it seems, the Secretary of State has done, and the figure of 26,000 seems to be a reasonable deduction. Let us, then, once and for all put the dead men in their graves. Let us have no more of the argument about dead votes.
Similarly, one hardly doubts that a calculation could be made about the number of students having two votes but able to use only one of them, swelling the total out of which a 40 per cent. would have been obtained.
It seems to us, on the face of it, that the Secretary of State's figure of 28,000 is probably wholly reasonable. Of course, in these matters we trust him completely. The Labour "Vote No" campaign is not concerned to win on such trivia. We are out for a majority "No" vote, and not on the technicalities of multiple registration.
The Secretary of State asked for our views on the proportions which are recorded, on the question of private lodgings, and on the register of warden and student residences. I should have thought that we would be quite happy to let the Scottish Office officials work out these matters as they think just. This point also applies to hospital students.
I say here and now that those of us who are dissenters in this matter would wish to see a generous calculation made, and that we do not make quibbles on this.
The Secretary of State asked about the counting officers and whether they should have discussions with political parties. if they are to have discussions with political parties, I should have thought that it would be satisfactory to have discussions not only with those on either side of a political fence but also with those on either side of this political argument.
What concerns the Labour "Vote No" campaign above all is that people in Scotland should have some clear idea of exactly what they are being asked to


assent to, what it is exactly that they are being asked to say "Yes" to.
This brings us to the question—it was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) —about the media and the referendum.
We have no complaint about the press being overwhelmingly hostile to the views of the Labour "Vote No" campaign. Newspapers are entitled, in a free society, to their opinions. Even when we do not care for those opinions, we will struggle for the right of newspapers to express them.
Further, whatever the editorial policy of The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald working journalists, editors and those who control the publication of letters to the editor have been generous and fair to those of us who dissent from them as to the creation of an Assembly.
Equally, I have no complaint about the other daily and national newspapers which have been trumpeting for an Assembly, or about independent radio, or about Scottish Television, which seem to be scrupulous in their approach.
Possibly I could be forgiven for gently suggesting to the Sunday Mail that its readers, who see my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), Mr. Archie Birt of Gourock and myself attacked as "Abominable No Men", might like to know that the journalist who does it is a high official of the Scottish National Party. From time to time, Mr. Colin Bell ought to remind us of his medals and his credentials.

Mr. Buchan: Indeed, he is not only a high official of the SNP but is also the vice-chairman in charge of press and publicity matters.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend's intervention raises a question of ethics into which I shall not be drawn.
As to the BBC, some of us have an anxiety. In the past months and years, time and again, Mr. Alastair Hetherington has shown himself to be just as much a protagonist in this argument as I or many of my hon. Friends have been.
Is it satisfactory that a player in the front row of the scrum should also be the referee who blows the whistle? This is not the way they do things in Hawick,

Galashiels or even at the Melrose Sevens.
Should Mr. Hetherington be the producer of "Match of the Day", if we can return to the round ball? It seems to many of us like asking Billy McNeill or John Greig to referee a cup tie between Rangers and Celtic.

Mr. Robert Hughes: They would do it better than most referees.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that they would do it better than most referees, but I think there would be some comment from the terraces, perhaps of a ribald nature, if John Greig or Billy McNeill were to referee a Celtic-Rangers cup tie. Whether or not it was fair, and however good they were, the issue is whether it would be seen to be fair.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am glad that my hon. Friend has clarified his position. While I understand the need for him to make analogies, and in view of the fact that Billy McNeill was a former manager of Aberdeen, I would hate anyone to think that he was unfair in any policy. One should he careful about using names in the context of an analogy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will not pursue his analogy, otherwise there may be an outbreak on the Green Benches which may not be suitable for the House, and we do not want that.

Mr. Dalyell: The fact is that Mr. Hetherington makes no pretence but that he desperately wants an Assembly. He is down in the scrum, he is on the cup tie park, battling it out with the rest of us. There is as much sweat on his brow, and mud on his knees, as on mine. Independent-minded though men and women in the BBC in Scotland are, the controller's attitude, in the nature of things, is bound to permeate the organisation.
I have to say that the taste of parish pump piffle which some of us have been getting from Radio Scotland, at the start of the day's broadcasting at 6 a.m. when Mr. Neville Garden tells us that he is talking to the "nation", confirms some of our darkest suspicions.

Mr. Buchan: I am not out of sympathy with certain of my hon. Friend's remarks, but I do not think we can allow this


attack upon the potential objectivity and, indeed, present objectivity of the BBC to go without comment. My hon. Friend has left on one side the entire mass media and commercial television. On the other hand, despite the particular views of the controller of the BBC, about which I know nothing, there is nothing to suggest that the BBC is any more partisan than any of the other newspapers or media. For goodness sake, my hon. Friend should look at The Scotsman. He should be careful about what he is saying.

Mr. Dalyell: It stretches my credulity to think that my hon. Friend, an assiduous reader of the Scottish newspapers, knows nothing of the views of the controller of the BBC, because anyone who reads the Scottish press can hardly be unaware of them.
Therefore, let it be suggested to the governors of the BBC that for the period of January to February 1979 they ought to grant Mr. Hetherington leave on full pay and instal a professional BBC man as controller who is identified with neither side of the argument.
Delicate decisions of balance will have to be made. Not only will they have to be fair, but they must also be seen to be fair. Indeed, to be fair to Mr. Hetherington, precisely because he is on the "Yes" side of the argument, and being the sort of man he is, he might lean over backwards to be fair to the "No" side of the campaign. Then there would be complaints from certain of my hon. Friends who are calling for an Assembly.
Mr. Hetherington cannot win in this situation. Far better that he should be sent on sabbatical. I would not complain even if he campaigned in a personal capacity for his point of view, but not from the perch of the controller's seat in Queen Margaret Drive.

Mr. George Reid: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the BBC in Scotland is in breach of its charter? Would he not agree that, every time there has been a studio confrontation, both sides of the argument have been represented and will continue to be so?

Mr. Dalyell: It is very important that we discuss these matters. The hon. and

learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby was quite right to raise the issue of the behaviour of the media, without which this discussion would be wholly incomplete. I leave it to hon. Members to make their own contribution, but I am sure that others of my colleagues will have something to say about the media, including the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid).
Let the House consider one example of where a man of Mr. Hetherington's public beliefs will be in a fix. Let us consider a particular problem, the ethics of which bother Mr. Russell Galbraith and Mr. Colin Mackay of STV, who have perceived the difficulties. That was the problem raised tendentially by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby.
Let us suppose that the Labour Party, in the person of Mrs. Helen Liddell, or the Scottish National Party, asked for a party political broadcast or an opt out in the immediate run-up to the referendum. What then do the broadcasting authorities do? Do they accept the right of the parties to give their own material, or insist in the interests of balance that the various "Vote No" organisations be given equivalent prime time? This raises deep questions of principle. A man of Mr. Hetherington's involvement would find it difficult to satisfy all concerned in such circumstances.
I ask the direct question: what is the Government's attitude to the use of party political broadcasts on the eve of the referendum? It would be grossly unfair to produce a party political broadcast in which the Prime Minister gave a pep talk to the people of Scotland unless the "Noes" had a right of reply.
Just as in a General Election, when things have to be done on balance, so they must be in a referendum. Not perhaps both political parties but both sides of the argument must be given fair treatment in the run-up.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key word in this issue is "balance" and that in broadcasting two types of balance can be achieved—balance within a series of programmes, and balance within the individual programme? If balance of either type is achieved, then the balance which


must be achieved in any referendum broadcasting must be a balance as between those who say "Yes" and those who say "No"?

Mr. Dalyell: In general, that is a proposition to which I would assent.
If I have concentrated my remarks on the BBC, it is not that I am obsessed with it or with what it will do, or even that television will decide the issue.
There is a group of people who will be more decisive than the BBC—the editors and journalists of local and regional newspapers or of local radio. We in the Labour "Vote No" campaign take heart from this fact because we believe that the local and regional editors are the heirs to the greatest traditions of Scottish journalism. The local and regional editors are serious, perceptive, robust, independent minded, concerned with neither fear nor favour, their own men in the best sense, not dependent on their owners but dependent only on the respect of the local communities which they serve, and concerned, above all, with how the welfare of those communities will be affected by proposals from the Government or from anyone else.
The Labour "Vote No" campaign takes heart from the fact that, now that the crunch is coming in the shape of the referendum on 1st March, it is these men who are beginning to ask precisely what they are being asked to agree to.
As one local editor put it, "Just what are we being asked to vote 'Yes' to?"
In the short term, "Yes" is a yes for more politicians. These politicians will have to be paid out of the block grant. Therefore, "Yes" is yes for less money for hospital staff, for example.
"Yes" is a yes for a Clerk of the Assembly, Assembly clerks, secretaries and office staff—all skilled people who will be paid for out of a finite and far from bottomless block grant. Therefore, "Yes" is yes for that many fewer teachers paid out of the same kitty.
"Yes" is yes for more civil servants, a second tier of government, a parallel layer of bureaucracy, all paid for out of the block grant. Therefore, "Yes" is yes for fewer home helps. Do pensioners want more bureaucrats and fewer home helps?
"Yes" is yes to an institution which has no power and no authority in economic affairs, but whose members will be forced to struggle for power and authority to cope with the most urgent problems which concern people about jobs.
I quote an example. At the three industrial meetings which I have held so far on behalf of the Labour "Vote No" campaign, the first question was always the same: "What will the Government do for us?".
The question was in essence the same whether it concerned the dumping of pipe from Italy which threatened work at Motherwell bridge; help for the shipbuilding industry needed by workers at the Greenock Engineers, Kincaid; the pricing of butiedine leading to redundancies at the International Synthetic Rubber Company at Grangemouth.
Members of an institution which styles itself the Scottish Parliament, with the paraphernalia of a Scottish Prime Minister, will be expected to do something about these problems, and they will put the responsibility on the "English" Government, implying that if only they had the power and the money from the parsimonius English Treasury they could do something about pipes, ships and synthetic rubber.
Therefore, "Yes" is yes to conflict from day one between London and Edinburgh—and it will be conflict with ill will and rancour not only from SNP Members of the Assembly, but from Members of every party in that institution.
"Yes" is a yes to a nagging and sustained devisiveness in these islands. Again, in the short run, "Yes" is a yes for more laws and regulations. It is said that we need changes in Scottish laws and there is not the time available at Westminster. The example usually given is the lapse of time between divorce law reform in England and divorce law reform in Scotland. Let that one be nailed. The delay took place, not because of a shortage of time at Westminster, but because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), backed by a majority of Scots MPs, simply did not want it. Parliamentary time has never been a real problem if Governments are really serious about wanting legislation for Scotland. Lack of time is often given as an excuse by Governments who, rightly or wrongly do not want to do something.
"Yes" is yes for an Assembly which will have to churn out laws in order that the Assemblymen can justify themselves.
In the medium term, "Yes" is yes to an Assembly which will quickly and understandably come to realise the impossibility of having community councils, district councils, regional councils, COSLA, the Scottish Parliament, Westminster, Brussels and the European Parliament. We Scots are the most over-governed people on the face of the planet earth.
Therefore, "Yes" is yes to an Assembly which would be less than human if it did not try to get rid of the regions.
"Yes" is yes to an institution that is bound to try to take decisions currently made in Aberdeen for Grampian, Dumfries for the South-West, Dundee for Tayside, Glasgow for Strathclyde, Kirkcaldy for Fife, Kirkwall for Orkney, Lerwick for Shetland, St. Boswell's for the border, Stirling for Central and Stornaway for the Western Isles and shift them to Edinburgh.
In fact, "Yes" is yes for centralisation, not decentralisation.
I remember 15 years ago, when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) was the election agent for my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), he told me at Limond's Way, Ayr:
Decisions about education in Ayrshire should not be taken in Edinburgh.
Has that changed?
"Yes" is yes for every district and regional councillor from Dornoch to Dunbar and from Stranraer to Stone-haven having member of the Edinburgh Assembly breathing down his neck and meddling in his work in a way that Westminster hon. Members generally do not do because we have other responsibilities.
Let every councillor in Scotland be clear that "Yes" is yes for the creation of a different kind of animal from present Westminster Members.
"Yes" is yes to every councillor having members of an Assembly around his head as persistent as the midges in high summer in Perthshire.
"Yes" is yes for proposals about which the doubts of the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates were deployed at length on Second Reading. These have

never been resolved, because one cannot resolve the unresolvable.
"Yes" is yes to two bodies, two legislatures, two Parliaments making separate laws in these islands—a situation that is wholly different from our present position where there is one Government.
At European level, "Yes" is yes to a hazy notion that an Assembly will have direct relations with the EEC. It will not. As long as Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom, if a Scottish Prime Minister went to Brussels it would be in place of Mr. Speirs, secretary of COSLA, and he would sit alongside representatives of Merseyside, West Yorkshire, the Dorset county council and Greater London. France and Germany will not contemplate the superficially attractive idea of a Europe of the regions.
At a Labour Party level "Yes" is yes to coalition Governments—inevitably so, sooner or later unless one envisages permanent Labour or Conservative rule. Numerically, three parties probably will dominate the Assembly—Tory and Labour and SNP. A Tory-Labour coalition is unthinkable. Therefore, to form a Government there would have to be either a Labour-SNP or Tory-SNP coalition, and inevitably part of the bargain would be to move down the road to a separate Scottish state.
"Yes" is yes to something entirely different from that envisaged by the begetters of this Bill in their public statements.
"Yes" is yes to a house built upon the sand which will be washed away by the first autumn storm, and transformed into something else.
"Yes" is yes to an institution which cannot last in the form in which it is presented in the referendum. How long does anyone think that whoever is the hon. Member for West Lothian can go on voting, probably decisively, on comprehensive schools in West Bromwich or pay beds in West Ham?
How long can the new Secretary of State for Trade expect to go on voting on the most delicate issues of domestic policy in Southampton or South Shields, but not on those same matters in Stepps or Shotts?
"Yes" is yes for an infringement of the basic tenets of natural law and democracy.
"Yes" is a yes for power without responsibility.
"Yes" is a yes to the absurdity, indeed, the logical impossibility, of having a subordinate Parliament in part of the United Kingdom.
It is no good the muddle-headed hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) getting up in the Central Hall in front of 800 London schoolchildren and saying that the situation will be all right, and that the so-called West Lothian question does not exist because there are more than 500 English hon. Members. I warned the hon. Member that I would raise this issue.
The point is that the Scottish and Welsh MPs will often in future, as they have done in the past, determine the composition of the Government. For the hon. Member for Pentlands to say that he is quite content to see decisions relating to English schools, housing and health determined by hon. Members representing only English constituencies, implies a Cabinet consisting of the present Prime Minister, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Foreign Secretary, and—wait for it—the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) dealing with housing, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) dealing with health, the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) dealing with education, with the present Leader of the House shuttling in and out of his office and making way at awkward intervals for the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), as occasion demanded it, as an English Leader of the House.
That is the consequence of what the hon. Member for Pentlands said and those others who suggest that to solve the West Lothtian question Scottish MPs could opt out of English business. In saying that, I am fortunate to have the assent of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan).
That is precisely the situation prompted by those who say that the Scots can refrain from voting on English matters.
Nor is it any more convincing for the hon. Member for Pentlands to tell the schoolchildren that as 50 states of the United States have their own legislatures, why should not Scotland have its own?
The parallel to that would be Texas, alone among the states, having its own Government while the rest of the states were ruled directly from Washington. The Americans would not contemplate such a grotesque nonsense. If it is argued that we must come to a federal State, it would be more honest to have a referendum on this.
The question then would be "Yes" or "No" to a federal State. If it is to be a federal State, let us have a referendum on a federal State.
Let us not have a referendum that is designed to deceive voters about what they are voting for.
These goods are totally different in reality from the goods as packaged in the form of the question. If there is to be a federal State, someone had better persuade the electors of Birmingham that they must have a separate law-giving body in Mercia, the people of East Anglia that they want a Parliament in Norwich, producing different laws from those made in London, 90 miles away, and that the kingdom of Wessex must be re-established with a capital in Winchester. That is the consequence which has to be faced by those who say "Let us have our referendum, vote 'Yes', and then we will get a nice, tidy federal solution." It is not like that.
"Yes" is yes to creating divisions in this land where, for a couple of centuries or more, people have not thought in terms of whether applicants for jobs and positions are Scots or English.
"Yes" is yes to mounting a tiger from which it will be impossible to disembark. For example, the universities may have heaved a sigh of relief that they are not devolved. If an Assembly is established, it will only be a little while, in the opinion of many of us, before the demand for control of universities by that Assembly becomes irresistible. I hope that university personnel intending to vote "Yes" will be clear that they are embarking, if that is the right word, on a tiger that they cannot get off. They should be clear what they are letting themselves in for—the break-up of the United Kingdom research pattern.
"Yes" is yes for the creation of a monster which will spend its time trying to knock down every barrier which seems to distinguish devolution from a separate


State. I refer to Gilchrist's law which is as valid as any mathematical theorem.
"Yes" is yes to something that will either go as sour as milk left out of a refrigerator or, more likely, it will become a Frankenstein monster which will devour those who created it.
What is certain is that no more than milk will it remain in its original form.
Within months, this institution would become very different from what is proposed by those who beget it.
When this order was published, I asked the Clerks whether any amendment would be in order. I was told that it was a statutory instrument and unamendable. The amendment I would like to have put, with the support of certain of my hon. Friends, was after "Yes" to add the words—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has indicated that the amendment is not in order. He cannot propose it to the House in this debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I would like to hear it.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that he would like to hear it, but I know better than to read it. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in charge of the proceedings. It is to your ruling that I must submit.
There should have been inserted in the referendum, however unrealistic it may be in terms of rules, the fact that those voting "Yes" would be voting for an expensive institution which would turn out totally different from that which is put forward by those who propose it.
All that those connected with the Labour "Vote No" campaign and those who think on parallel lines can now do is to sweat out our guts working for a resounding "No" to a proposal which, as has beecome clear over months and years, is against the true best interests of all those who live in Scotland.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am compelled to remind hon. Members of Mr. Speaker's earlier appeal for brevity, otherwise we shall still be discussing the order on 1st March.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall not follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) down his almost paranoiac path. His obsession about the Scottish Assembly is so great that any constriction of his remarks to the order we are discussing would, according to him, be out of place. He had to go over the whole field again to indicate his opposition to the whole principle of the Scottish Assembly. I would rebut his criticism of Mr. Colin Bell, a journalist, who is perfectly entitled to call the hon. Member for West Lothian an abominable "No" man. It seemed to me a remarkably mild description after his performance today. I suspect that some of his colleagues, who gave signs of mirth, would have much stronger epithets to describe him, and have probably used them.
Of the images that the hon. Gentleman conjured up, the one that took my fancy was the sour milk monster which he seemed to think was lying in wait for the Assembly.
The hon. Gentleman went too far in his attack on journalists and the BBC. They have editorial discretion. Many of us, from time to time, take exception to what they say and how they manage programmes, but generally it evens out and is fair. I do not think that the National Union of Journalists would be pleased to hear the views of the hon. Member for West Lothian about journalists. To my mind, he was not describing them correctly and was attacking the ethics of that profession.
Could I turn my attention to the order which I thought we were discussing—

Mr. Dalyell: No, no, no.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says I should not turn my attention to the order. Despite that, I hope I shall have your support, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I do so. I do not accept that this referendum is necessarily a straightforward and fair test, as was described. It has built into it the 40 per cent. condition. If that 40 per cent. condition had not been placed in the Scotland Act by this House it would have been perfectly right and proper to describe the referendum as fair. In view of that 40 per cent. condition, it is equally proper to describe this as a loaded referendum, because it sets a margin of


acceptance that is far higher than is found in any other referendums that I have been able to discover.
I do not wish to make too much of this point because we have dealt with it in earlier proceedings. One of the problems that anyone looking seriously at the issue comes across is the effect of turnout on the 40 per cent. criterion. It is in the interests of the hon. Member for West Lothian and his hon. Friends who are against the Assembly to play a very quiet campaign and allow the issue, in effect, to fall asleep, so that the turn-out is small. It is interesting to look at the turn-outs in various elections. In General Elections, the percentages are much higher. For example, in the October 1974 General Election, the turn-out was 74.8 per cent. and in the February General Election 79 per cent., according to The Sunday Times. In the 1970 General Election the turn-out was 73·9 per cent. whereas, in the Common Market referendum, only 61·7 per cent. turned out. It would seem possible that referendums, by their nature, produce a lower turn-out and there is an obligation on all those supporting the Assembly to try to get out as many voters as they can.
There are problems, however. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of broadcasting and balance. I think one of the difficulties which may face those in favour of the Assembly is that certain television programmes which do not originate from Scotland but deal with current affairs will not cover the referendum and devolution to any great extent. I am sure that there will be some programmes about it, but, unlike the General Election campaign, I do not foresee the BBC and ITV broadcasting programmes about the political issues night after night. If insufficient attention is devoted to the referendum by the media, including the Press, I fear that the turnout for that vote on 1st March will be lower. It is therefore much more important that we look carefully at the order. The Secretary of State went through it in an admirable fashion. He showed that the Scottish Office had been giving attention to some of the problems that are likely to emerge as a result of the 40 per cent. clause and the higher standards that it sets. But he did not fully deal with one or two other matters.
For instance, the right hon. Gentleman did not spell out fully some of the factors which will bear on the electoral register in terms of those who are entitled to vote. I understand the reason for that. He has been considering the matter in a narrow legal and technical sense so that he can discount those who are entitled to vote but cannot, but cannot discount those who are not entitled to vote but can.
Some of the categories which may cause trouble are listed differently. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with those who have not reached the age of 18 on polling day but who are listed on the register. He has mentioned the question of those who have died, but he is unable to deal satisfactorily with the case of those who have emigrated and cannot therefore cast a vote, those in the Services who may run into difficulties in casting their vote, and those who have moved residence and will have only a postal vote. Some of those who change their addresses are less likely to vote than if they had remained in the area in which they were registered.
Another category which causes trouble is those with two homes on more than one list. The right hon. Gentleman specifically examined the question of students and those in hospital training or hospital hostels. One category with which he cannot deal is those who might be away on holiday at the time of the referendum and who are not entitled under our electoral law to a postal vote. They would be entitled to such a vote had they been away from home at work. A holiday, however, disqualifies them.
I concede that this last category is not particularly large since the referendum is being held on 1st March. However, in the October 1974 General Election a large number of my constituents were absent on holiday and therefore unable to vote because the election was held in the October holiday week. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would deal with these matters.
Another point is that in early March 1978 the Health for Scotland Campaign—a group of doctors who are campaigning for a "Yes" vote—brought to the Prime Minister's attention the fact, that unless allowance is made, hospital patients and those who are bedridden or otherwise incapacitated at home will count as having


voted "No", unless they exercise the right to vote by post. In view of the 40 per cent. clause, the doctors asked that the 3 per cent. of the population who could vote because of illness should be taken into account. May I be told what cognisance the Government have taken of these representations?
It is unfortunate that, although the Secretary of State has spelled out some of the ways in which the Goverment intend to calculate the total electorate entitled to vote in the referendum, these critera are not spelled out in the order. From what the Secretary of State said I can understand some of his difficulties in quoting figures. It will not be possible to work out the arithmetic concerning those who are dead and certain other categories until close to 1st March. On the other hand, it might have been helpful had the order spelled out the criteria which will be taken into account.
It may be that at the time the House of Commons takes its decision some doubt will be cast on how the 40 per cent. has been calculated. If the formula had been set out in the statutory instrument there would have been less difficulty about the matter. In the absence of that, we shall have to refer to speeches by Minister in Parliament.
Westminster was hostile to the passage of the Bill, and it would not surprise me if hon. Members such as the hon. Member for West Lothan cast a critical eye at the figures, in the event of a fairly narrow majority, when the House determines whether the 40 per cent. figure has been achieved in accordance with the Act.
It is a pity that we have had to deal with these peculiarities of the electoral system in this way, but it was right for the Secretary of State to spell them out, because the 40 per cent. clause is basically unfair. It should never have appeared in the Act, and the Government, to their credit, did not intend that it should. It has created peculiarities which did not arise over the EEC referendum.
It is important for the public that referendums of this sort should be seen to be fair. My impression of the Scottish public is that, while it is not clear whether the meaning of the 40 per cent. is understood, the people regard it as basically unfair.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Member believe that there should be no minimum percentage but a simple majority at any level?

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is usual in referendums for account to be taken of a majority of those who vote. Since this is to be a consultative referendum I am sure that the House of Commons would take into account the fact that, say, only 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the Scottish population had turned out to vote. It was wrong to go the other way and build in the 40 per cent. provision which, as the hon. Member well knows, was intended to cripple the legislation and prevent it from being enacted. If that was not the intention, those who were against the Scottish Assembly in principle would not have introduced the 40 per cent. rule.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We heard this evening a remarkable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I was asked last week by a journalist why my hon. Friend was practically the only person ever to speak against the proposal from the Labour Party in Scotland. The simple reason is that he represents a very small section of the Labour Party, and that there are few people, at least among the active members of the Labour Party, who would give credence or support to the extreme views advanced by my hon. Friend this afternoon.
I welcome the order. It is simple and straightforward. It puts into practice the machinery that was tried and tested in the EEC referendum. Whatever may have been the views of the respective arguments about Europe, I am not aware of any substantial criticism during or after that campaign concerning the machinery by which public opinion was tested and the votes counted. It would require a great deal of ingenuity, of which we have heard nothing substantial in the debate so far, to suggest that there were substantial difficulties about that machinery and that they are being re-enacted in this Order.
The debate has been used by certain hon. Members to rehearse the general arguments about the virtues of devolution. I found it almost comical to hear



the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) complaining that there has been no proper consultation in almost five years since the Government's intentions about this legislation were first announced. Looking back at those five years of my existence in politics in Scotland, I imagine that we have consulted about nothing else. If people are unclear about the issues, that is not because of any lack of effort by a large number of people inside the House and outside to put across the pros and cons of the issue. I welcome the fact that it is now coming to a head, to the point of decision for the electorate. It is right to hold the referendum on 1st March.
I say to members of the Scottish National Party that it was correct to delay the referendum until the new register came into being. That is sensible, given the kind of difficulty imposed by Parliament in terms of the 40 per cent. amendment. I do not think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) was guilty, but some of his colleagues were loud in their complaints about delay in bringing the referendum forward. After the announcement that there would be no election last October, there were demands for an instant referendum. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that perhaps smacked of party politics and was not in the best interests of those who wished to see a "Yes" vote carried and the 40 per cent. left in the wake as a technical difficulty that was overcome.
If the date is to be 1st March, I accept that snow and bad weather may be a difficulty. But that is not a factor that we can do anything about. Perhaps I may declare a little personal interest. I am aware of the difficulties of snow because last April it was snowing extremely hard half-way through polling day at the Garscadden by-election. My descriptive phrases were probably more eloquent than anything I am likely to be able to muster in this speech to express what I thought about that particular act of God. But at the end of the day we polled within half a point of 70 per cent. and got what was perhaps, in my prejudiced view, a most satisfactory result.
I do not see that we can afford to start muttering and protesting about the possibility of bad weather as democratic

politicians. If it is suggested that we should run the referendum over two days, why not run it over a week or month so that all those who had the misfortune to be away on holiday could get back to vote? There is no end to the amount of time that we could spend voting in order to try to push up the number of people who might be able to vote. We are stuck with one-day elections in this country, whatever the circumstances.
I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian wants to see a high poll in the referendum, but we should not look at his suggestion that we should consider extending the referendum or have split voting because of the danger of snow.

Mr. Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend never had the misfortune to be stuck in a snowdrift?

Mr. Dewar: I thought that on polling day at Garscadden they would be building igloos on top of Drumchapel in no time. Yes, I have been stuck in a snowdrift. I can also remember other occasions. I recall a famous election for Caithness and Sutherland when a defeated Member of this House claimed that bad weather had cost him his seat. That may well have been—these things happen. But it is something that we have to live with.

Mr. Dalyell: Drumchapel is one thing, Drumochter is another.

Mr. Dewar: That is the eternal vanity of geography with which I am inclined to agree. But the general point still holds.
There is a special arrangement in the order for observers at the count. Although this is a minor point, it is of importance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would consult the parties about representations at the count. I take it, therefore, that this at least is an instance where consultation will be with parties and not with combinations of individuals who may have set up an umbrella organisation. It might be important at this stage to get that clear.
We have had a great deal of discussion about the part the media will play. Clearly, whatever reservations I and others may have about the line that an individual newspaper may follow, that is that newspaper's business and within its


province. We may complain, but we cannot do more and must try to bring to bear countervailing influences on its readers and others who may get its message.
I thought that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian on broadcasting and television bordered on the eccentric. I declare something of a past interest. In a small and amateur way I was involved regularly for two or three years in broadcasting on a local radio station. Throughout that period—and I make no bones about—I remained active in the Labour Party in Scotland. It may sound a little conceited, but I imagine that it would probably be safe to say that no one in Parliament, for a Scottish seat at least, was unaware, when he came to be interviewed by me or to take part in a discussion programme that I was chairing, what my politics were.

Mr. Dalyell: Didn't we just!

Mr. Dewar: I think that my hon. Friend makes reference to books that he wrote about devolution. I was grateful that it was on the whole a commendatory reference and not a complaint about bias. The point is that I believe that it is possible for a person in the media to have political opinions, not to be a political eunuch, and still to be reasonably professionally impartial in the studio doing his job. I think that I could make a fair shot at giving the personal politics of all those in Scotland who are before the cameras at the moment, largely because I knew them as members of political clubs in their student days or have discussed politics and current affairs with them. I believe that on the whole there is a level of impartiality and balance in the Scottish media about which I make no complaint at all.
On the question of broadcasting and balance I say two simple things to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. If there is a party political broadcast which, in the normal course, has been allocated, not by the political genius of Mr. Alastair Hetherington but through the normal all-party machinery in this House which governs party poliway, that party will no doubt use it to push the party policy that it believes in.
I accept that my hon. Friend does not like the fact that he has lost the battle within the Labour Party on the subject of devolution. But that is something he must live with and with which he must come to account. He will continue his own almost obsessive campaign against the Act, I have no doubt, and he is entitled as an individual to do so. But it is quite ludicrous to suggest that, in some way, if a political broadcast has been given to the Labour Party or to the Conservative Party it should be inhibited from putting its point of view about what, after all, will be at that stage the main and overriding consideration of Scottish politics.
Secondly, it seems to me that outside a specific allocated party political broadcast—and if at some time an hon. Member proposes that party political broadcasts be abolished, he will have my eager support—there should not be specific programmes, analogous to party political broadcasts, particularly scheduled for the referendum. It should be covered by the media in terms of normal debate and coverage of current affairs that we see on the BBC and STV. I have no doubt at all, whether it be the independent channel or on the BBC, that they will ensure that there is a fair spread of representation and that the issue is fairly argued out in the interests of public information.
I agree that we need to ensure that people know for what they are voting and what the issues are. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian got near to saying that there should be explanatory material and explanatory pamphlets, perhaps issued by the Government. I should have liked that, but he backs away from the possibility. At the end of the day, the fairest thing is to leave the media to continue what seems to me to be the reasonably high standard that they have shown in the past and not get a persecution complex about one man who happens to have a responsible job in the BBC and who has views which, like those of other people in the media, are known to us in this House. We are giving undue prominence to Mr. Alastair Hetherington's views. I judge him on many issues. It does not matter whether I judge him favourably or unfavourably. On this issue he has been regarded as a danger and an unbalancing factor.


"Alone he did it" was the message of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian.
I believe that we shall carry the "Yes" vote in Scotland. But I do not think that Mr. Alastair Hetherington will be responsible one way or the other for the fate of the referendum.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept what my hon. Friend said about the working journalists of all political convictions in the BBC. However, my hon. Friend's argument is slightly different. He is talking about whether the person who has to make the delicate decisions of balance—not the interviewer but the man in the controller's chair—is in a different position from the rest.

Mr. Dewar: When it comes to considering delicate matters of balance I suspect that the views of certain other members of the BBC staff are more important. For example, the head of news and current affairs, whom I know well, will have important decisions to take about what balance is to be struck and what interest groups are to be represented. I could give a thumbnail sketch of what I imagine to be that man's political views. I shall not do that because it is irrelevant. He is a professional who will do a professional job. We should leave him to get on with it. I do not think that anyone will be able to come to the House at the end of the referendum process arid make a substantial complaint about the way in which the balance has been maintained by the media.
I turn to the 40 per cent. hurdle and the deduction factors. The Secretary of State has been praised by a number of hon. Members for the thorough and sympathetic way in which he has been prepared to look at the problems that arise out of the imposition of the 40 per cent. rule. It is simple to calculate the number of dead and to exclude those whose birthdays fall after 1st March 1979.
I believe that the 40 per cent. provision is bad. I say to SNP Members that the time has come to concentrate on getting the "Yes" vote instead of recriminating about the 40 per cent. hurdle. The more sour and bitter they are the more counter-productive they will be and the more they will minimise the chance of overcoming that hurdle.
The provision is bad because it involves the "removals" who cannot be compensated for. A person who moves from Glasgow, Garscadden to the top of Wick is unlikely to organise a postal vote because of a lack of interest in politics. Such a person will be entitled to cast a vote and cannot be struck off. That is a fault which is built in to the 40 per cent. concept. Those who pushed for it, including many Opposition Members should think seriously before they try to repeat that provision in any future referendum.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) spoke about a sect in the North-East the members of which will not vote on principle. I have knocked on doors in Aberdeen and been told with certainty that even though people were on the register they would not vote because there is nothing about voting in the Bible. Such doors were shut with an air of self-righteousness which I found disconcerting. Such people might change their minds. They might receive a revelation. However, we cannot get them off the register. We are stuck with them.
Factors such as the registration of the sick and those who have moved will make that percentage marginally higher in real terms. Because of that there is every reason to ensure that fair and adequate compensation is made on the double registration factor when it is possible to make a deduction.
The Minister has said that it is estimated that there will be 5,000 people in hospital and 28,000 students in residence. Those figures should be taken out of the calculation because they will lead to a considerable balance of disadvantage for those who wish to minimise the 40 per cent. hurdle.

Mr. Brittan: Would it not be unwise to do that because it would be illegal? The Secretary of State could not be satisfied that all such people were not entitled to vote because they would not all be double registrations. Therefore, if he operated on the assumption that the totality instead of the proper proportion was deducted he would be taking into account wrong considerations. He could then be challenged and that would not be in anybody's interests.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. and learned Member would lead the challenge in the


context of balancing in the other direction. We should have the maximum discount that can legally be justified. There is a built-in disadvantage about which we can do nothing because of the ill-considered way that this provision was pushed on to the statute book.
I was pleased to hear what the hon. and learned Member said about the Conservative Party's attitude to the 40 per cent. provision. He made it clear that if the 40 per cent. hurdle was cleared he and his right hon. and hon. Friends would advise the House that it should accept the Assembly and ratify the "Yes" vote. I am glad that that has been made clear because different propositions have come from other hon. Members.
A kite—and that is being polite—was flown by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). He suggested that there would have to be a clear 40 per cent. majority in each of the regions before the Conservative Party would regard the vote as a wholehearted consent which they could endorse. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has also entertained unwise thoughts about accepting the result of the referendum.
I regard the referendum as advisory. I would not necessarily be bound by every jot and tittle of the 40 per cent. provision. As a Member of Parliament I must look at the overall picture. If I were satisfied that a substantial majority voted "Yes" and that the vote was near to the 40 per cent. required, I would not overrule the possibility of going into the Lobby to accept that decision. One must examine the facts at the time in the context of Scottish public opinion and what happens at the referendum. I hope that the Conservatives will take an equally flexible view.
I am glad that we are approaching the moment of decision after this long and difficulty fight. We have heard many versions of what devolution is about. I do not wish to fall into the trap of trying the patience of the House by giving my version. However, I believe that the Scotland Act is a useful strengthening of the government of Great Britain. When I campaign for a "Yes" vote I shall campaign for devolution, not as a half-way house or staging post towards leaving the United Kingdom, but as an essential change in the structure of the United

Kingdom to strengthen it and to ensure that Scotland remains within the United Kingdom.
The Act reflects the legitimate aspirations of the Scottish people. It represents a more efficient and flexible system or government for Scotland. In spite of the hurdles and difficulties, and although we shall need at least a 10 per cent. greater turn-out than in the EEC referendum, I am convinced that there will be sufficient interest and enthusiasm to ensure that we achieve a resounding "Yes" for an experiment which will bring nothing but good for the future of the Scottish nation.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I feel that it is perhaps important that the House should hear an English voice in the debate which, although it concerns an order that specifically covers Scotland, has, as we know from our long debates on the subject, very important implications for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The order follows what I consider to be the primrose path of the Act. We have to remember that a referendum is still virtually unknown to the British constitution and to the British people, with the exceptions of the singular circumstance in Northern Ireland and the once and for all referendum, so we were assured, for our continuing membership of the EEC.
Despite our lengthy debates on the Scotland Act, I do not believe that the full implications of the referendum have yet been thought out. In my view, if a referendum is to be held at all it should be held in all parts of the United Kingdom and not just in Scotland and in Wales. The omission of England, with four-fifths of the total population of the United Kingdom, is a staggering oversight.
There is, of course, no enthusiasm for the referendum in England, not even among Scottish people living in England. If from now on we are to have a spate of referendums, people at large in Scotland, in England and everywhere else in the United Kingdom will prefer to vote on matters which really affect them vitally, such as capital punishment and immigration, or which affect the future of their race, such as Rhodesia.
The dislike of English people for the referendum stems from the fact that they object strongly to Scotland having its own


Assembly and at the same time still being grossly over-represented in this House by what, in some cases at least, are little more than rotten boroughs. This manifest unfairness to England cannot be justified much longer. As it comes to be increasingly realised by English people, I am sure that it will cause burning resentment and lead to fundamental changes in the way that this ancient House operates.
The supporters of an Assembly in Scotland will, I fear, fight an unscrupulous campaign in the referendum. All sorts of wild promises will be made. The referendum is being held out to people as a chance of getting something for nothing, and in this materialistic world most people want something for nothing. The risk of damage to the essential fabric of the British constitution is of course hidden completely.
In its heart of hearts, the House knows —and the 40 per cent. provision inserted into the referendum proves my point—that as the result of this Act we are entering uncharted and dangerous waters. At this stage, no one can foresee the risks, the harm and the dangers which an Assembly will bring in what has been until now a unitary State, the largest part of which has no separate or special representation.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It does not need it.

Mr. Stokes: The noises from below the Gangway prove only that once the new Assembly is set up, assuming that there is a "Yes" vote in the referendum, there will be continuing bitter conflict between that Assembly and this honourable House.
We know the history of this miserable Assembly and referendum, originally thought of by the Labour Party as a means of saving votes from the Scottish National Party which suddenly had discovered greed for Scottish oil. When the Labour Party saw that it could not get the Scotland Bill through the House, it tacked on at the end of it the referendum to make the pill less bitter. But, of course, the good sense of the House reasserted itself, and lots of patriotic English people, including many Government supporters, decided that before we voluntarily broke up the United Kingdom they would at least insert the 40 per cent. provision,

and now we hear all the whines about that. Clearly there must be much less confidence in getting a "Yes" vote than there used to be.
Therefore, on these twin rotten planks of a new-fangled Assembly and a referendum, this whole miserable project rests. I hope only that in foundering it will not bring down us with it and the whole of the United Kingdom constitution.
Above all, I feel deeply—and I know my constituents and, I believe, the majority of people in the United Kingdom share my view—that we are not in this House addressing ourselves to those fearfully severe problems which affect the whole of the United Kingdom. All this paraphernalia of the Assembly, the referendum and the rest of it do nothing to help the country in its dire straits. Certainly they do nothing to restore the patriotism and proper national pride which are now lacking. They do nothing to help to set right the economic failure of the United Kingdom compared, for instance with France and Germany. They do nothing to enable us to keep order in our streets and towns. They do nothing to help the unemployed. Certainly they do nothing to help us to defend the shores of the United Kingdom from enemy attack. These are the matters with which our constituents throughout the length and breadth of the land expect us to concern ourselves, instead of this irrelevant and, in my view, dangerous order concerning the referendum.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It would have been wrong for me to allow this final passing of the legislation without making some comment, as one who was responsible for launching this strange ship into slightly uncharted waters.
The launching of the demand for a referendum and the success in gaining one have resulted in its emerging in a very different form from that which I envisaged.
There are two aspects which in my view are thoroughly bad about the referendum. One is that the 40 per cent. provision has been inserted. I believe that to be bad, not for the spurious political reasons which have been advanced but because it allows the cry of "Foul" to be raised.


There is a lot of sense in saying that if we are contemplating going into a new constitutional position, there must be a demonstration of a major political will behind it.
The cries of "Foul", especially by the SNP and, for that matter, by the SLP, displaying a certain timidity about their confidence in the will being there to accomplish it. Their fears about the dead man's vote having now been squashed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I should have expected the SNP to be a little more generous in thanking my right hon. Friend for his attempts to deal with the so-called "foul" aspects in what I regard as a bad concept.
That is one respect in which the present ship is rather different from the one which I launched. But, after all, Christopher Columbus set off to find China, and he hit America. I launched the referendum with a very simple proposition, which was to say "This Bill has emerged from Committee full of flaws. Only one thing can allow it to succeed and survive, as with any constitution, and that is that the political will must be there to allow it to survive." It seemed to me that that meant that the Scottish people should choose or reject an Assembly only—in other words, they should say "This Assembly is what we seek. We are not establishing an Assembly as the first step into independence", and make that choice deliberately.
After the passing of a few years it will be a different kettle of fish, but at least for the first few years the Scottish people should have this choice and try to make the Assembly work instead of allowing it to crack at the first crisis. I thought that it was necessary, therefore, to have both these questions—one on devolution and one on independence. I adhere to that view. The only argument for a referendum is that we have transcended party politics, because the sovereignty of this place, and indeed the sovereignty of the State, could have been questioned. That was a matter for the people to decide. We also had to allow the political will to be established which could, in the long run, make the Assembly succeed.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) is right in say-

ing that there are dangers. There was always a balance of danger. The question always was not whether there were dangers in what we were doing but whether there were more dangers in not doing it. Some of my hon. Friends ignored the balance of doing something, just as others have ignored the balance of not doing something.
We shall not serve the establishment of the proper will of the Scottish people by exaggeration on either side—by saying that an Assembly is the best thing since sliced bread, to coin another metaphor known north of the border, or by saying that it must inevitably crack. I believe that there are dangers, but there are also opportunities.
I hope that the referendum in the form that it has come through will get what I am seeking and will involve the people in an understanding of what we are doing. It is my task to make clear that it is an Assembly that we are trying to establish and that we are rejecting the most vociferous of those who are crying "Yes" on the Assembly—that is, those who are keenest to destroy it and who seek an Assembly in order to use it as a catapult. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) described the measure as the "catapult to independence Bill". There are those who seek to use it as a catapult to wreck it into independence. My only role in the referendum campaign will be to spell out the role of the Assembly.
Having initiated and, partly, achieved the gaining of a referendum, I wonder whether I am the only person who really believes in it. That may be so. Some people seized on it as a means of making sure that they had enough votes on the Government side to get the Bill through. Others may have seized upon it in the latter stages as a means of preventing the Bill from getting through, or destroying it if it did get through.
I believe in the referendum on the constitutional argument I have held throughout. It is the only way to allow the flaws to be lived with until we can remove them. I shall not ask the people of Scotland to vote for this Assembly without. at the same time, making them aware of the dangers. There is the enormous danger of the lack of taxation powers. It is a question not only of giving power to the Assembly but of creating a spike


through it which could restroy the Assembly. Having argued the case for a referendum, it would be wrong for me to try to sell a "Yes" vote without spelling out these dangers. That I am prepared to do.
We must be clear that we have not solved the major constitutional problem which arises concerning the role of hon. Members—the famous West Lothian question. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has received a lot of stick, and sometimes laughter. I have sometimes participated in both the stick and the laughter. He used too many metaphors today, but he produced a pretty massive spike for the possible impaling of our constitution in relation to the West Lothian question. We have no solution for that, and that must be spelled out. If we take this matter on board, we must remember that we shall have to live with the situation for a long time, and that the independence question has not been put.
Therefore, it was a strange launch and perhaps I am the only survivor on it. I hope that the referendum campaign will serve the purpose of educating the people, but I want to stress again that I do not want it to be used for purely party political purposes. An hon. Member mentioned earlier the problem that might arise if a General Election followed soon after the referendum. I hope that we shall conduct the referendum in such a way that those in both main parties—such as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and West Lothian —can argue their case within their movements and that it will be recognised that they are not attacking their party if they speak in a contrary way. The nature of the proposition, and the fact that we have used the mechanism of a referendum to deal with it, shows that we accept that it transcends party politics. I do not accept what my hon. Friend for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said about only a small number of people in the Labour Party opposing devolution. A very large number of people in the party are extremely concerned because they love Scotland and care for it and do not want to see it wrecked. I want nobody on the "Yes" side to suggest that those who care about Scotland must not attack the

devolution proposals. I can see that it will be a difficult role, but I hope that I can ask the people to try to fulfil it.

Mr. Dewar: Purely for the record, I certainly suggested that their numbers were few and I hold to that. They are few and they are getting fewer, but I never suggested that they were insincere or that, by definition, they did not care about Scotland. I might disagree with them about the future of Scotland, but I want it made clear that I did not accuse them of not caring.

Mr. Buchan: I absolutely accept that. I said that I did not think that they were few and I went on to make the point about caring. Of course, I absolve my hon. Friend completely.
I can speak with some authority on behalf of the Labour Party in Scotland because I am a member of the executive committee of the party in Scotland, and I accept completely that this is Labour Party policy, not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom. That is why I welcome today's decision of the executive committee to help with the finance of the "Yes" campaign—whatever my reservatons may be on either side of the argument. It is right that the party should fulfil its commitment to the House and to the people of Scotland.
I assure all hon. Members that the Labour Party, as a party, will be campaigning hard for a "Yes" vote. At the same time, we must have understanding and generosity towards others. Having got a referendum, we cannot ignore the dangers and difficulties that lie within it. Even in the midst of the campaign some of us will have to perform an educational role. Having got the referendum and having asked the Scottish people to make the decision, my main function is complete. I do not want a spurious will to be developed which is based, not on an understanding of the situation, but on the fact that people feel that they must vote Tory, Labour or SNP and therefore vote "Yes" or "No" accordingly. It must be done through understanding. Otherwise that which I have sought—the establishment of understanding in the first place and the political will to make it survive in the second place—will have been in vain.

6.18 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The details that the Secretary of State gave us of deductions from the electoral register—particularly in relation to those under 18 on 1st March and those who had died—showed the extent to which the difficulties in achieving the 40 per cent. vote had been exaggerated. Having got over that hurdle, we still have another to surmount.
When we hold a General Election, we go to great pains to ensure that money cannot buy the result. We also ensure that there is a fair allocation of time on television and radio. My recollection of the European referendum is that a sum of money was allocated to both sides in order to see that the matter was properly put. If the order is passed, we shall have not a three-week General Election campaign, but a referendum which has already started. Indeed, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will probably be reported on the radio with one or two of his "Yeses"—although I thought that he wanted to vote "No".
Therefore we have already embarked on a campaign in which people are electioneering, but there appears to be no machinery to show how much money any political party has spent trying to achieve a vote one way or the other and there is no reason to suppose that any other organisation will not step in and spend as much money as it likes, even though it may be very unrepresentative of the country as a whole. That is a loophole in the arrangements for the referendum which has not been properly looked into. I hope that further consideration will be given to that.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brit-tan) spoke about not using public money. I suppose that it could be argued that any hon. Member who campaigns for either a "Yes" or a "No" vote should have to give up his parliamentary salary during the campaign, which has started today, because otherwise he would be using public funds to try to press his point of view. Perhaps I am taking the problem to the point of absurdity, but there is a real difficulty.
I hope that the Government will consider the matter and ensure that, when the result is announced, people will not

be able to say that those who won the vote did so only because they spent much more money or put better known people on television to press their case.
I am dead against referendums, but, if we are to have the beastly things, there ought to be provision to ensure fair play.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: This is the last occasion on which the House will be debating the Scotland Act—at least until after the referendum. However, no hon. Member doubts that we shall be returning time and again to the consequences of the Act. If the result of the referendum is favourable and the Secretary of State lays his first order before the House, we shall be back with the Act again. If the result is negative, we shall have a different sort of order before us and it will be up to the House and another place to decide how to vote on it.
The Secretary of State told us nothing speech and dealt in detail with the criteria that would be adopted to decide whether the 40 per cent. vote had been obtained, but there were two serious omissions in his speech and I hope that the Under-Secretary who is to reply will deal with them.
The Secretary of State told us nothing about the estimated cost of the referendum. I hope that we shall be given that information. The Under-Secretary will remember that when we had the referendum on the EEC in 1975, an explanatory note was attached to the referendum Bill giving an estimate of the total cost.
The second omission was one to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) rightly drew attention. We need a clear explanation about what the guidelines will be on broadcasting and television time during the referendum campaign. That is a matter of great importance.
Like the 1975 referendum in the United Kingdom, the referendum in Scotland has come about, not because of any deep constitutional commitment on the part of the Government to the principle of the referendum, but because the referendum is the only device that the Government could think of to overcome their own domestic difficulties. That was most emphatically the case in 1975 and it is most emphatically the case now.


There was no suggestion of a referendum in the original Scotland and Wales Bill. We were offered a referendum as a sop to the anti-devolutionists on the Government side. Following that, the 40 per cent. amendment was made, to the discomfiture of the Government, in clause 85.
When we first embarked on the 1975 referendum, Lord Glenamara, who was then Leader of the House said:
Governments are elected on their whole programme and it would be neither appropriate nor practicable to have referenda on individual parts of the package."—[Official Report, 11th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 293.]
He went on almost to contradict himself by saying that the justification for the referendum on the EEC was that it was a unique issue.
At the time, many of us, including myself, believed that we were setting a precedent, even though Government Ministers, notably the then Leader of the House told us that the referendum was special and would not be repeated.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman also recall the assurance of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), at the time of the EEC referendum, that he hoped never to use that device again?

Mr. Gow: I do not recollect the words of the former Prime Minister, but if the hon. Gentleman says that that is what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said, I accept it. The right hon. Gentleman has underlined my point.
If those of us who were concerned about the precedent in 1975 have been proved by the order before us to have been justified, we are entitled to say that an even more dangerous precedent is now being created. When, within three years, the House is asked to approve another referendum, in circumstances that are wholly different from those of 1975, we are fast on the road to setting a precedent which it will be extremely difficult for future Governments not to follow.
I am a strong opponent of the referendum as a constitutional weapon in the United Kingdom. It weakens the authority of the House and could involve our being put in a position of intense difficulty. A few years ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wim-

bledon (Sir M. Havers) suggested that we should have a referendum on the subject of the death penalty and the idea has found favour with other of my hon. Friends.
I have little doubt that, if there were a referendum on that issue, the British people would vote overwhelmingly in favour of a return of the death penalty. However, the House would still have to pass legislation and nothing said in a referendum would make me, as an opponent of the death penalty, vote in favour of its return.
I have another objection to the order. It is incredible that the Government should have framed the Scotland Act, the celebrated section 85 and the order in such a way that, although the implementation of the Act clearly affects the whole of the United Kingdom, affects fundamentally the relationship of hon. Members with the Government and will give to Scottish hon. Members the power to make decisions about matters affecting England and Northern Ireland, while hon. Members from Northern Ireland and England will not have a similar power in regard to Scotland, the referendum is to be confined to Scotland. It is inconceivable that in relation to the Scotland Act the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and England should be excluded from a matter that is of such importance to the whole of the kingdom. I make that statement despite my fundamental hostility to the whole concept of a referendum.
The Chair urged us to be brief, and I have almost completed my remarks. When the result of the referendum is known and the Government come to the House with their first order to operate the Act or to repeal it, we shall have taken a decision of the utmost importance. The Government agree with that fact. I hope that they will ensure that in the coming campaign there is no abuse of Government money or public funds, and I hope that we shall receive the clearest answers to all the relevant points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was right to remind the House that, although this debate had been thinly attended, we are


discussing a matter of great significance. One factor which has united those who hold different views on the order is that beyond it lies an important decision. The second factor is that it is vital that the referendum campaign, the decision and the holding of the referendum should be fair and be seen to be fair.
It would not be good for Scotland if the impression is created that the referendum is unfair. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) asked the Secretary of State a number of questions, and I hope that they will receive a reply at the end of the debate. I should like to put a number of other detailed points to the Minister.
My first question relates to attendance at or entry to polling stations. Is it the case that under rule 33 the only person who is entitled to go into a polling station, other than those who go there to cast their votes, is the Member of Parliament for the area? That appears to be the interpretation of rule 33 and, if so, is it correct?
Will the Minister in reply to the debate say something about the guidance to be given to counting officers? Will he say how they are to decide on observers and other persons who under rule 45 are to be allowed to attend the count? The Secretary of State for Scotland said that there would be discussions between the parties, but does he intend to give guidance—perhaps by means of a circular—to counting officers as to what they should take into account in deciding who should have the right to attend the count? Will such persons, for example, have the right to make representations on spoiled papers? Those of us who take part in General Elections know that one of the main functions of election agents, and sometimes of candidates, lies in giving advice or making representations on spoiled papers. Who in the referendum will perform this function, and who will be allowed to be present for this purpose?
Furthermore, what matters will the chief counting officer bear in mind in deciding whether to ask for a recount under rule 51? It would appear from the rule that that decision is a matter entirely for the chief counting officer.

Mr. Milan: I am afraid that in answer to an earlier intervention I gave a piece of wrong information. The question of a recount is a matter for the counting officer, and a Member of Parliament or anybody else present would not be able to call for a recount.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for that intervention; that was how I understood the order. But perhaps the Minister in reply to the debate will be able to say what considerations will be taken into account by the chief counting officer. What will happen if the total of "Yes" and "No" votes does not add up to the total number f voting papers issued, or will any other considerations arise?
The Opposition greatly welcome the order. We have made it clear that we support the basic provisions of the order that there should be a referendum in Scotland in March on the major constitutional changes proposed in the Scotland Act. We welcome the fact that the rules for conducting the referendum should follow as closely as possible the rules for elections, which have always been regarded as fair and equitable.
Some of us share the view expressed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that perhaps there is a danger in holding the referendum on 1st March instead of 22nd March, as we suggested, simply because of weather considerations. We should remember that if there is very bad weather—for example, blizzards—it will affect not merely the 40 per cent. issue, but the balance of the result. The Minister is well aware that in different parts of the country there could be varying views on the "Yes" or "No" decision. For example, if there were a preponderance of "Yes" and "No" votes in the rural areas or in the city areas, the type of weather experienced at the time of the vote could have an effect on the result.
We are in no doubt that if there is a fair referendum, with both points of view being put forward and expressed with equal force and prominence, the voters will lose sympathy for what, at first sight, may appear to be an attractive package. I believe that they will go through exactly the same experience as did Parliament when, by the end of our debates, the argument had clearly been won by those who oppose the Bill. Few would argue


that if we had had the kind of secret ballot envisaged in the order of all Members in the House, the Bill would never have reached the statute book. Our belief and our aim is that there should be a fair referendum.
I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the issue of votes by the deceased or by those whose names appear twice on the register. The great furore on this issue has stemmed either from the ignorance of those who did not study the text of clause 82 or from a deliberate attempt to discredit the 40 per cent. provision. It was clear from the Bill that the Secretary of State had discretion in interpreting what amounted to 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote. Of course there is no entitlement to vote by dead people, although I am told that in some places that has occurred. Furthermore, people who appear twice on the list are not entitled to vote twice.
I hope that there will be no further talk about the result of the referendum being distorted by dead men or absent students. Although I have no wish to enter into the controversy about the impartiality of the media, some of us wonder, after the remarks of the Secretary of Stale, what correspondents will find to write to The Scotsman about after today.
However, we are less than happy about the other essentials of a fair referendum. It has been obvious up to now—and I think that it has been generally accepted —that the balance of argument so far and propaganda on the Scotland Act directed at the general public has been for the proposals. Probably this is inevitable. The majority of the Scottish press has argued for the Assembly, and there have been few opportunities on radio and television for the case against to be deployed.
This has happened, not because of lack of balance, but because most of the programmes have dealt with the progress of the legislation and the implications of the Assembly rather than with the arguments for or against the proposal. In these circumstances there is a special obligation on the Government to take no further steps that might be designed or interpreted as undermining the balance of what in Scotland's interests should be a fair campaign rather than a loaded one.
I hope that the Secretary of State will at least associate himself with the view

of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby that, although the broadcasting organisations should be free from political pressure, all parties in Parliament would regard the correct interpretation of the balance of argument on this issue as being a balance between the arguments for and against the Act and not a balance of the opinions of the political parties.
The hon. Member for West Lothian was right to point out that very difficult decisions will have to be made by the broadcasting organisations. It is a question not only of how many programmes or of balance—all kinds of considerations are involved—but of the mere location of a programme. For example, a programme could rightly be interpreted as being emotive in itself. If any of the broadcasting organisations were to suggest that there should be a great debate on the issue in the Assembly building, nothing could be designed to be more emotive and pushing one particular line. These are difficult decisions of balance which the broadcasting organisations will have to look at most carefully.
I hope that the Government will make it clear, as did the Secretary of State, that these are matters for the broadcasting organisations, but that, in the view of all parties in Parliament, the balance should be between "Yes" and "No", not the political parties.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will say something about the vexed question of party political broadcasts. The only Member who seemed to think that it would be fair and reasonable to have a number of broadcasts upsetting the balance was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who made an unusual speech. He seemed to he attacking no one, except those who could not or do not vote for religious reasons. That is a safe thing for a politician to do.
I think it only fair and reasonable that we should preserve a balance on television and radio. It is not a question of helping one side or the other. If we do not have balance, it will mean that, no matter what the result, there will be those who will say that it was a loaded, not a fair, campaign. Therefore, it is important that we should do all in our power to ensure that the campaign is fair and reasonable and that there does


not appear to be any loading in any direction.
This referendum will be the second major referendum to be held in our democracy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was right to point out, and it may not be the last. On the other hand, I think that there is a growing feeling in the House that, while there are arguments for and against referendums on all kinds of issues, there seems to be a difference concerning constitutional issues. I think that it is fair and reasonable for some people, such as myself, to take the view that the voters give us sovereignty, which we exercise with discretion, to vote for what we believe to be right or wrong. If the voters do not like us, they can chuck us out after five years. However, if we are to change the rules, the constitution and the basis on which that sovereignty is given to us by the people, it is right that we should go back for another mandate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) suggested that we should perhaps seek the consent of all voters, not just Scottish voters. However, I think that we can draw a distinction between constitutional issues, which involve changing the structure, and issues in which political considerations are involved.
I think that, despite this being the second major referendum that we are to have, we have not accepted the referendum principle as part of our normal process of decision making. The Opposition's major regret is that the Scottish people are to be asked to make their decision on the devolution issue and debate by voting for or against a scheme of devolution which was put forward by one political party guided as much by electoral considerations as by a genuine desire to improve the structure of government.
It is a fact that many of those who have been supporters of the principle of devolution regard the Scotland Act as unworkable and divisive. They find that the narrow choice between "Yes" and "No" will not enable them to express the view that they want constitutional change, and they regard the Scotland Act as almost the worst way of going about it. That view was reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire,

West (Mr. Buchan), who said that it would not be easy to guide people whether to vote "Yes" or "No", particularly if, as Members of Parliament, we were aware of the enormous constitutional pitfalls which would result from a "Yes" vote.
We welcome the order. It gives the people of Scotland the opportunity of rejecting or approving the decision made by Parliament. We shall certainly join those in other parties and in no party who argue for a "No" vote so that early discussions can proceed to place a more workable and less divisive proposal or series of proposals before Parliament and the people. But it is right that on such an important issue the people should be given the opportunity of expressing their view. The order provides a sensible way of going about it. We hope that the Government will make it clear that their view is the same as ours—namely, that we want a fair, balance and educational campaign so that the people of Scotland may make the right decision for Scotland in full knowledge of the facts.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate on what has been a narrow and restricted order dealing only with the mechanics of the referendum to be held on 1st March 1979. We do not object to the wide-ranging debate. We have listened with great interest to the various suggestions which have been made about the numbers to be subtracted from the total numbers eligible to vote as at 1st March 1979. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, we shall certainly give weight and consideration to all that has been said in that regard in the debate.
One or two main points were made in the debate. I promise the House, and my Welsh colleagues in particular, that I shall not take too long to deal with them. However, I intend to deal with them thoroughly. For that reason, I shall not single out every hon. Member who spoke in the debate.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) asked several questions, some of which have already been answered, but others were raised only today. The one question which


has already been answered related to the date for elections to the Assembly should the people of Scotland decide in the referendum to accept the legislation. Time and again we have said that it is premature to talk about dates for elections to the Assembly. I strongly suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, but I know that he is always anxious to make this point.

Mr. Brittan: I merely want an answer.

Mr. Ewing: The other main point that was made related to the balance on radio and television and party political broadcasts. I propose to deal first with party political broadcasts.
Party political broadcasts are allocated according to a time-honoured formula. Every hon. Member knows how party political broadcasts are allocated throughout the year. I should point out, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), that there would be nothing wrong if, during the referendum campaign, the Labour Party were due to have one of its normal routine party political broadcasts and were to use it for the purpose of putting forward its policy on devolution. There would be nothing wrong in that at all. Indeed, I do not imagine that either the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would complain about that. The material used in a party political broadcast is a matter entirely for the party concerned.
We shall not object—I give this undertaking—if the Conservative Party, during the referendum campaign, uses a party political broadcast to put forward its argument, which is against devolution. In fact, we hope that will be the position, because the people of Scotland are waiting with bated breath to hear exactly why the Conservative Party is so bitterly opposed to devolution for Scotland. We shall not object to that if that should be the case.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This is a serious matter. We have always made it absolutely clear that we are not against devolution. The Minister must realise that this is an important issue. There are four parties in the House: the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Party, the

Conservative Party and the Labour Party For example, the Liberals, the Scottish nationalists and the Labour Party, for their own good reasons, may decide during the referendum campaign to have party political broadcasts to the effect that devolution is a grand idea and, for its own good or bad reasons, the Conservative Party may decide to have a broadcast and not mention it at all. Would it help a fair and balanced campaign to be put before the people of Scotland if there were to be three television programmes saying that devolution was a great thing and one programme not mentioning it? Would it not be fair and reasonable to have a balanced argument for and against devolution rather than to distort it by party political broadcasts?

Mr. Ewing: This is a new approach to party political broadcasts—that the Conservative Party should retain to itself, the right of the SNP—and I hold no brief for it—to use the material it wants in its party political broadcasts or to dictate to the Liberal Party the kind of thing that it should say in its broadcasts. That is foreign to everything that has ever happened in party political broadcasts and if it is the intention of members of the Liberal Party to speak in favour of this Bill, if that is their policy, that is their business. If the SNP wants to do that, it is its business. But party political broadcasts are something apart.
Ministerial broadcasts, however, are something different. On every occasion when there has been a ministerial broadcast, the Opposition have always claimed, and have always received, the right to reply—on such things as Budgets and as on the night when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that there would not be an October election. There has always been the right of reply to a ministerial broadcast.
On the question of a balance in the media, we have a precedent here because during the EEC referendum campaign there were many people such as the hon. Member for Cathcart who campaigned against entry and who felt that the media were weighted against our going into the Common Market. That was a feeling some of us had. It did not happen that way. I must say in fairness that the broadcasting authorities and the television


authorities maintained a meticulous balance in the time allocated to the argument for and against during the EEC referendum campaign.
We have no control over the press, nor would we want to control the press. I would be astonished if the Conservative Party wanted to do so. I have every confidence, against the background of the precedent created during the EEC referendum campaign, that the broadcasting authorities will maintain a strict balance. I hope, therefore, that I can allay any fears.
The hon. Member for Cathcart raised an important point—and I want to clear that up as well—when he mentioned the possibility of the Royal High School, or the Assembly building as I call it, being used for broadcasting during the campaign. I can tell the House that it will not happen. On Monday next week we are having an open day at the Royal High School to let the media see the progress that has been made. Thereafter, we shall ask them not to request broadcasting facilities again until the building is completed. Therefore, the building will not be used during the campaign for any kind of broadcasting, or any other purpose. I hope that no one is under any illusion whatever on that point.
I have been asked about the cost of the referendum campaign, in Scotland. We have answered questions on costs before. The cost is put at £880,000.
I turn now to the use of the Government machine. This is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President. These questions would be far better addressed to him. There will be ample opportunity between now and the referendum date, at Question Time and on other occasions, to raise these matters with my right hon. Friend. I can say that no one need be concerned about malpractices. There will be no malpractices and where a Minister is performing a ministerial duty he will be supported, as always, by the Government machine. That is the broad line that ought to be drawn.
I was asked one or two specific questions about entry to polling stations. The hon. Member for Cathcart asked about the eligibility of anyone to enter a polling station. The answer is that the only person eligible to enter will be the Member

of Parliament for that area. Dealing with what criteria the chief counting officer will apply in deciding whether there will be a recount, I should make it clear that the chief counting officer is not responsible for establishing whether 40 per cent. of the people have voted "Yes". If the papers do not balance or if there is some other arithmetical error, the chief counting officer will be involved. But it should be clearly understood that the returning officers and the chief counting officer are not responsible for deciding whether 40 per cent. of the people have voted.
I turn now to the question of those who will be able to obtain admission to the count itself. Rule 45 of the Parliamentary Election Rules as modified by this order is quite clear. It makes provision for the presence of observers at the counting of the votes. The counting officer may limit the number of observers to one observer to every two counting assistants. A Member of Parliament is entitled to be present at the count if any of the votes to be counted have been cast within his constituency.
As to the appointment of observers, my right hon. Friend has in mind that consultations should take place at the official level with a view to arranging for the Scottish political parties represented in Parliament to submit to counting officers the names of persons they wish to be appointed as observers in each region or Islands area. While the counting officer will have the power to appoint whomsoever he wishes as observers he would, in practice, be likely to accept observers nominated by the main political parties in Scotland. The role of observers would be analogous to that performed by counting agents at normal parliamentary elections. I hope that I have cleared up that point.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Surely the Minister would not think it unreasonable that, if approaches were made from an umbrella organisation, facilities might be given for it to attend a count? It would be wrong, particularly for those who might not agree with the official views of the party, to be excluded from the count simply because their views were individual. Surely, if there were a request from an umbrella organisation either for the "Yes" or "No" campaign, it would not be refused.

Mr. Ewing: We are not laying down rules as to whom the returning officer should admit or exclude. The guidance is quite clear. We are saying that consultation will take place, not with umbrella organisations, but with the Scottish political parties and the officials concerned. There is no intention of having consultations with any umbrella organisation which might spring up during the campaign.

Mr. Brittan: How does the Minister propose to deal with the interests of those members of the Labour Party who are opposed to the measure?

Mr. Ewing: That is an interesting question. The official policy of the Labour Party in Scotland, and the United Kingdom generally—and that of the Government—is that we are in favour of devolution and of this Bill. It is with the official organisation that consultations will take place. I notice that the hon. and learned Member did not ask me how we would deal with the interests of his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) or how we intend to deal with the interests of the hon. Member for Cathcart, who does not know whether he is "Yes" or "No". There is a host of imponderables when it comes to representing anyone's interest and obviously the best approach to this problem is to consult the political parties in Scotland. That is the guidance we have given.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is doing less than justice to the office he holds by treating this issue so frivolously. The position is that it is quite obvious to everybody that there are differences within the parties. If we are talking about seeking genuine consultations with people who take a particular view it is simply unrealistic to say that there will be consultations with the official political parties when the hon. Gentleman knows there are people within the Labour Party who disagree with the official line. If he wants to have proper consultations that point cannot be ignored, however frivolous he may be about it.

Mr. Ewing: I am not surprised at the touchiness of the hon. and learned Member. Having been shifted once already in the past fortnight, he may well be shifted again in the not too distant future, once the General Election comes along. I

am sure that his touchiness is due to the fact that he sees the possibility of a "Yes" vote looming larger on the horizon. All I am saying—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is getting touchy, too. Is there something troubling him?

Mr. George Younger: The Minister is not doing justice to himself. I am sure that he is perfectly capable of taking this matter seriously and giving a sensible answer.

Mr. Ewing: I am taking it seriously and giving a sensible answer. I am responsible only for the answers that I give and not for the failure of others to understand them.

Mr. Abse: I put to my hon. Friend what has been put already in the debate. There are substantial sections of opinion in Scotland, as in Wales, which will be organised in a Labour "Vote No" campaign. It would be outrageous if, in any discussions which took place—with political parties, the media or the Department, or in connection with any directives about who can attend the count—there was an attempt to exclude substantial, organised bodies of opinion wishing to express their views. The reply which my hon. Friend has given does less than credit so far to that broad section of opinion in Scotland and Wales which is within the Labour Party and which should be acknowledged.

Mr. Ewing: I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that I am not talking about consultations with the broadcasting authorities. I have never mentioned that. I spoke about observers at the count. I thought I had made that clear. I said that our officials will have consultations with the main political parties. If the chief returning officer wants to talk to anyone else, that will be his business. Equally, if anyone wants to talk to him, they must make an approach. We are saying that the official discussions will take place with the Scottish political parties. This is not unacceptable. It is a totally acceptable, understandable and proper way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) raised an important point concerning the number of people who may be in hospital during the time of the referendum, and thus unable to vote. This


is one of the difficulties which face us. All hon. Members will have to accept that there will be those who, perhaps, should have been deducted from the total but who will not be deducted because of circumstances such as those put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
This is not the easiest matter with which to deal. People may suddenly become ill and be unable to vote. My right hon. Friend and I are very much aware that before 1st March, when polling takes place, people will want to know exactly how many votes will be required to reach a set target. We shall do our best to make sure that the necessary information is available before 1st March. I cannot go further than that now. We shall take into account all that has been said in the debate.
I would not wish to conclude my speech without a reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. I intend to show my hon. Friend the same generosity as was shown to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). To digress for a moment, it was strange to hear the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) plead the case that money cannot buy a result against the background of the activities of Saatchi & Saatchi over the past five or six months.
I hope that this campaign can be conducted on a constructive basis. I did not regard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian as being one of the most constructive speeches he has made on this or any other subject. If the line that he took in his speech were to be continued throughout the campaign I can assure him that it would do nothing to ensure a constructive approach to this subject.
I am grateful for the support that has come from all parts of the House for this order. This is the last but one step on the road to setting up the Scottish Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Scotland Act 1978 (Referendum) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.

WALES (REFERENDUM)

7.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move,
That the draft Wales Act 1978 (Referendum) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.
The purpose of this order, like the order relating to Scotland which we have just debated, is to appoint 1st March 1979 as the day on which the referendum will be held in Wales, and to apply the statutory machine through which the referendum is to be conducted. The order is made under paragraphs I and 4 of schedule 12 to the Wales Act 1978. It applies all the relevant parts of the Representation of the People Acts, including the Parliamentary Election Rules and the Representation of the People Regulations, and part of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 1969. It follows substantially the precedent of the order made for conducting the EEC referendum in 1975.
Following that precedent, polling will be conducted on the basis of districts, and the returning officers will be those who act in that capacity at district council elections. Counting, however, will be conducted on the basis of counties. I shall appoint a chief counting officer who will certify the overall result for Wales. He will appoint counting officers at county level who will declare the county results locally after consultation with the chief counting officer. I shall also be making an order under section 2(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1967 to prescribe the Welsh version of forms which may be used in the referendum. The front of the ballot paper is already prescribed in a bilingual form in schedule 12 to the Wales Act.
In Wales, as in Scotland, the 1979 electoral register comes into operation on 16th February 1979. In selecting the date for the referendum, it is our intention that the referendum should be conducted on the basis of an electoral register which is as up to date as possible. The date of 1st March was chosen because we considered it the earliest practicable date after the new register takes effect. It will provide the opportunity for the maximum number of Welsh electors to cast their vote. I hope that those hon. Members who in the


past have accused us of dragging our heels will now give us the credit we deserve for pressing on with the referendum as soon as practicable.
The latest statutory date for publication of the new register is 15th February 1979. In view of the proximity of that date to the date of the referendum the electoral registration officers in Wales have been asked to do their best to arrange for copies of the registers to be made available as soon as possible before 15th February. So far, the indications on this point are very helpful.
Eligibility to vote in the referendum is determined by paragraph 2 of schedule 12 to the Act, and is not therefore a matter for this order. Those who will be able to vote in the referendum will be all those eligible to vote as electors in a parliamentary election in Wales and those peers eligible to vote in a local government election in Wales. For an elector to be qualified to vote his or her name must appear on the electoral register to be used, and the elector must be 18 years of age or over on the day of the poll and not subject to any legal incapacity on that day.
The qualifying date for entry on the 1979 electoral register was 10th October 1978. The draft 1979 register will be published on 28th November and will be open for public inspection and for notification of additions, changes and objections until 16th December.
I return to the order itself. The general principle has been to apply the normal electoral law for parliamentary elections, modified as necessary. A great number of the modifications are necessary simply because of the absence of candidates and the consequent need, for example, to make such substitutions as
a particular result" at the poll for "the election of any candidate.
The order consists of seven articles and two schedules. Article I provides that the order will come into operation as soon as it is made. Articles 2 and 3 deal with interpretation, application and construction. Article 4 fixes the date and the hours of polling, which are the same as for parliamentary elections. Article 5 provides for arrangements to be made for observers at the verification of the ballot paper accounts and the counting of

the votes. Article 6 provides that absent voting facilities will be as for parliamentary elections.
Article 6(5) lays down that postal applications must be received by the registration officer by 15th February 1979. I hope that this date is noted, and would urge anyone who thinks he is entitled to a postal vote to apply well in advance of this date.
Article 7 carries out the provisions of paragraph 5 of schedule 12 to the Wales Act and provides for the expenses of returning officers to be defrayed as administrative expenses of the Secretary of State.
I do not think that I need detail further the contents of the schedules, which are essentially technical and relate to the running of the referendum, but I hope that it will be possible to answer any question on technical points at the end of the debate.
I turn now to the 40 per cent. provision. Before we can determine this 40 per cent. figure, we must try to establish the number of persons who are entitled to vote in the referendum. It is the expression "entitled to vote" which creates some problems. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already explained the difficulties involved in making a precise calculation of the figure.
Before discussing these questions in relation to Wales, let us put the reasons for the calculation into context. Section 80 of the Wales Act requires that if it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted "Yes" he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of the Act. In other words, if the 40 per cent. requirement is not met, the issue—whether or not the Act should be implemented—is automatically referred back to Parliament for decision. It does not mean that the Act must be repealed, but provides a mechanism whereby Parliament may consider further. Naturally, the Government will take careful account of the result of the poll before recommending what action should be taken, as no doubt will Parliament when either a repeal order or a commencement order is laid.
It should be clear from this that the strict determination of what constitutes 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote, whilst


important in deciding whether the Government should lay a repeal order, does not of itself decide the fate of the Act. In the last analysis, both the Government and Parliament will need to exercise a judgment, bearing in mind the result of the referendum.
I shall run over again the factors which influence the calculation of those entitled to vote. First, those who are entitled to vote will be those on the electoral register which takes effect on 16th February 1979. However—here I apologise for going over some of the ground covered by my right hon. Friend in relation to Scotland, but that is because we are having two separate debates—the register contains the names of, first, those who are under 18 at the date of the referendum; secondly, those who have died since the register was compiled; thirdly, those who are legally incapacitated from voting since the register was compiled, but these numbers are very small; fourthly, multiple registrations—those who may be registered at more than one address.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already explained, the "attainers"—those who are under 18 on the date of the referendum—can be accurately deducted because their numbers can be counted when the 1979 register is available. On the basis of the 1978 register, the deduction for this group would be in the order of 26,000.
The deaths category raises more difficulties, because it would be impracticable to check a roll of deaths against the electoral register. We therefore propose to make an estimate using information held by the Registrar General and on the basis of experience of death statistics over the past few years. If the referendum had been held on 1st March 1978, the estimate of deaths would have been of the order of 14,000.

Mr. Leo Abse: As I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, a definite figure for deaths was likely to be in existence in February. My right hon. and learned Friend has referred only to estimates of deaths this year. Am I correct in assuming that the same practice will be adopted in Wales as in Scotland, to ensure that in February we know the figure up to that time?

Mr. Morris: The practice will be the same in both countries. Part of the figure would be certain and part would be an estimate. I have shortened my remarks because I did not want to go over the whole ground, but I would add that clearly the total in a whole year would in any event be an estimate. The general approach will be the same in both countries.
The question of multiple registrations is perhaps the most difficult category, because of the problems of making estimates of how many people may be registered at more than one address. However, I am very willing to listen to any points made in the course of the debate and to consider them further.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in that category, the multiple registrations, there would be a significant discrepancy between Wales and Scotland, needing different treatment? That is not only because of the likelihood that there is a greater number of second homes in Wales but because of the legal points, taking into account the Walter Scott case in Scotland, which prohibits multiple registration of second homes in Scotland, whereas that does not apply in Wales.

Mr. Morris: I am not an expert on Scottish law on this matter, and I would not dream of advancing any views. There are difficulties in calculation. One is dealing with the problem of people with two votes, people on two registers in Wales. If someone has another vote because he has another home in England, the problem does not arise. For this purpose the problem is that of people having two votes within the Principality. That is the narrow point as I understand it. If I am wrong, I can be corrected and we can return to this matter later. It is a question of calculation.
I know how the controversy rages about second homes generally, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is with me on this point, that we are dealing with a particular kind of people, a particular class of people—if I may say that, lacking any other word—who happen to be on the electoral registers in two parts of Wales.
As I have said, I shall be glad to listen to points made in the debate and see whether it is possible, first, to calculate


the size of the problem and, secondly, to get over it. As I see it, it is very difficult to get over the problem, if indeed it is possible.
In conclusion, I am proposing that deductions should be made from the total register for 1979 for two categories—those who have not yet attained the age of 18 years and the estimated deaths of over-18year-olds in Wales between 10th October 1978 and the date of the referendum. In 1978 these two categories amounted to a total of 40,000—an extremely small figure in relation to the total number on the electoral register of 2,065,045. I hope that the House will bear in mind the remarks that I made earlier about putting the 40 per cent. provision into context.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to speed up his remarks, but the Secretary of State for Scotland gave us some useful information about the number of students and nursing personnel who would be involved in double registrations. Are similar figures available for Wales?

Mr. Morris: I do not have them now, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who will hope to catch the eye of the Chair, will try to give that information before the end of the debate. I understand that he has obtained certain figures. We are in difficulty in producing a series of calculations of the sort that he has described as the circumstances are not exactly the same for Wales. However, we shall do what we can to give the House the information at our disposal.
I was saying that I hope that the House will bear in mind the remarks that I made earlier about putting the 40 per cent. provision into context. It does not of itself determine the final decision on the implementation of the Wales Act.
The Government expect a conclusive result in the referendum. We hope that everyone in Wales will make use of the right to express his own choice in the referendum, and we shall encourage as high a poll as possible. We trust that the people of Wales will give a clear answer and will respond with such a resounding "Yes" that the achievement of the 40 per cent. provision will not be called into question.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The Opposition also expect a conclusive result from Wales, but we expect a different conclusion. However, we are united in agreeing that it is right that the people of Wales should have the opportunity of expressing their views on the Government's proposals.
We made it clear earlier in the year that we favoured holding the referendum as early as possible. If we had won the expected election in October, we would have ensured that the referendum was held as soon as possible.
I cannot help being mildly entertained by the bland way in which the Secretary of State announces the date of the referendum as being 1st March solely by reference to the convenience of that date and the fact that it is so close to the date on which the register comes into effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that it happens to be St. David's Day. I am surprised that that escaped him. That must be said as he made much of it being a happy day for the commencement of a previous stage in our deliberations on this measure.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that 1st April might have been more appropriate.

Mr. Brittan: I think that St. David's Day is an extremely good day on which to hold the referendum. I have no doubt, in spite of the omission from the Secretary of State's speech, that it was chosen to fan the flames of national feeling in support of the referendum. However, I venture to suggest that there is good reason for supporting the holding of the referendum on St. David's day. That is because the effect will be exactly the opposite.
The holding of the referendum on that day will draw attention to the vigorous celebrations throughout Wales on 1st March. That will show that the union of Wales and England has in no way damaged the spirit of the people of Wales in celebrating St. David's Day. It will, therefore, show that there is no need for such national feelings to be given expression in the form of an Assembly for it to continue to exist and to flourish.
For that reason, I think that the ploy will backfire completely and that the


people of Wales will realise that their national feeling needs no artificial vehicle in the form of the Secretary of State's Assembly.
The referendum is not the Government's idea. In supporting it we are not supporting anything that the Government thought was a beneficial way of testing opinion. Let us be clear about the history of the referendum. It was advocated at an early stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Edwards), but others perhaps, were in the field before him. Before the Secretary of State laughs too loudly, what is relevant is not who was in the field first but why the Government took over the idea. The reason that the Government were prepared to contemplate and include the holding of a referendum was simple. It was that without agreeing to hold a referendum they would never have obtained a Second Reading for the Scotland and Wales Bill.

Mr. Abse: We are getting a rewriting of history. However, I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will recall that almost two years ago, on the eve of the Second Reading, and without any support from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his Front Bench colleagues or from the Opposition Front Bench, I tabled a reasoned amendment that was signed by Welsh anti-devolutionist Members. I collected the signatures of 150 Members, including the Unionists. I collected no signatures from the nationalists. The motion was not signed by the nationalists or the Liberals.
Therefore, the only people who can claim credit for having given Wales the referendum are Welsh anti-devolutionist Members. The credit cannot be claimed by the two Front Benches. It must be given to the Back Benchers of the two major parties and the unionists who signed my motion. I hope that Wales will not be misled. Nobody except the Labour anti-devolutionists took the initiative of giving the Welsh people the right to decide their own future.

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I shall give way a third time, but I shall answer the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I make it clear that I do not and could not take an ounce of the credit

away from the hon. Gentleman for his achievement. I was stressing not who was first in the field but who was last. The Government were last. Indeed, the Government entered the field only because without doing so they would not have obtained support for the Bill to enable them to get it through the House.
It is of some importance for the record that just as we made our positon clear in the debate on the Scottish referendum we make our position clear in this debate. We shall campaign vigorously against proposals that are designed to lead ultimately to the weakening of Welsh local government, to centralisation in Cardiff, to damage to the power of Welsh Members of Parliament and the Secretary of State for Wales, and to the creation of a new, unnecessary and cumbersome bureaucrcy that will do nothing to increase the wealth or employment of the people of Wales or improve the quality of life within the Principality in any way. As that is our view of this measure, we shall have no hesitation in campaigning vigorously during the referendum against the Government's proposals and in favour of a "No" vote.
It is our duty as the Oppositon also to make it clear that in the highly unlikely event of there being a "Yes" vote in Wales and a clear majority in favour of the proposals in accordance with the requirements that the House has provided in the Wales Act, we shall advise Parliament to implement them. We would do everything in our power to make the new arrangements for the government of Wales work effectively for the sake of the people of Wales. We would do all that we could to minimise damage to the unity of the United Kingdom that we fear would result from the implementation of this measure.
We are concerned to ensure that there is a fair test of opinion in the conduct of the referendum in Wales as in Scotland. We are concerned that the odds are not loaded in favour of one side or the other of the argument. It is for that reason that, when talking on the Scottish order, I made considerable reference to the expenditure of public money and resources in favour of one side or the other in the campaign. I asked a number of detailed questions concerning the Government's publicity machine and the use of Government resources in the referendum campaign, which were not answered by the


Minister in reply and which, therefore, I have no hesitation or regret in repeating to the Secretary of State for Wales, in the hope that at least his hon. Friend will make an attempt to answer them.
Of course, we accept that it is Government policy that there should be a "Yes" vote. Of course, we accept that Ministers are perfectly entitled to express that view. It is a little difficult to understand why in this case there is no permission to dissenting Ministers to campaign on the other side, as there was in the EEC referendum, when it was also Government policy that there should be a "Yes" vote. I do not understand the distinction.
One knows that Ministers do not campaign in isolation. Research has to be done for their speeches, if the speeches are not actually written for them. Backup facilities have to be provided, together with promotional material. There is promotion of the speeches and of the tours. This is done by the civil servants concerned. Ministers are driven in public cars, and there are the usual public relations of all kinds. How much will that cost, and who will pay for it?
Those are straight questions. The people of Wales and the people of the United Kingdom are entitled to answers. I should have much more respect for the Government if they said "Yes, we think that money should be spent on that. It will cost £X and we ask the House to approve of that expenditure." The House might have its views on whether that expenditure should or should not be approved. It might have its views on whether similar funds should be available to those who take a different view. It might decide that no money at all should be spent. But at least there would be a fair proposition, properly put, and the House would be able to decide exactly what view should be taken on it.
It is right that the Government should make clear in exactly what way their facilities are to be used during the course of the referendum campaign. It is also right that there should be an answer to the questions that were asked by me from this Dispatch Box and also to the questions from other hon. Members throughout the House on the conduct of the campaign in relation to broadcasting.
None of the questions asked in the last debate was answered. I hope that where we had silence from Scotland we shall have speech from Wales. It would not be unprecedented, and it would be a happy outcome this evening. Although I cannot pretend to express any great confidence that those questions will be answered. But, in all seriousness, there is a need for ground rules for the conduct of broadcasting. It is not automatic and it is not sufficient to say "People will say what they want in the party political broadcasts and as for the discussion programmes and the news programmes we must leave that to the media and they will look after it all right."

Mr. Fred Evans: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the freedom of conscience that we have heard so much about does not apply to Members of this House, and that the Establishment in Wales has expressed the opinion that we should not put a foot on any platform? In other words, we are to be stifled. If we are to be stifled in our own constituencies, what chance have we in Wales of putting a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to the Government's viewpoint?

Mr. Brittan: I am quite confident that the hon. Gentleman is not of a calibre to be stifled anywhere. We have heard and seen too much of him to believe that he will be stifled. I am quite sure that there will be many others—I can see some sitting not far away from him—who will be equally difficult to stifle. I am not worried about people being stifled. I am worried about the conduct of radio and television.
The situation is not one in which there is a simple division between the parties. Taking the parties numerically and looking at their official position, we have the Labour Party officially in favour of a "Yes" vote. We have the Liberals officially in favour of a "Yes" vote, although they really want something quite different. But they will swallow the gnat and go along with it. The nationalists also want something quite different but will still say "Yes". The Conservative Party will say "No". On that count we have a three to one vote for "Yes", but everybody knows that to divide up the broadcasting time on that basis would be monstrously unfair.
What, then, is to be done? Would it not be right that there should be an equal division, not between the parties—I have not included the fact that three-quarters of the Labour Party will be in favour of "No"—but between the "Yes" and the "No" views? In all seriousness, I think that there is a problem which has to be dealt with, and it is very sad that neither Secretary of State has mentioned it. It may or may not be appropriate that it should be dealt with in the order, and I would be quite satisfied if the Government were to give an indication of how they propose to deal with it outside the order, but it is very unsatisfactory indeed that it should not be dealt with at all.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that he regarded as fair the transmission of three party political broadcasts for devolution in Scotland and only one against in the course of a campaign?

Mr. Brittan: That shows a concept of fairness which some of us find difficult to understand, let alone to share. That is the most charitable comment I can make on it. But the very fact that it is possible for a Minister to make an observation of that kind shows how crucial it is that the Welsh Ministers should give some more enlightened guidance on what the Government are anticipating in that respect.
We are grateful for the guidance which has been given concerning the 40 per cent. requirement. No doubt for reasons of brevity, until prompted by various hon. Members, the Secretary of State for Wales was slightly less forthcoming than the Secretary of State for Scotland. But I am not making a serious criticism on that point, so the right hon. and learned Gentleman need not feel obliged to rise from his place. I recognise that there may be reasons which make it more difficult for him to quantify at this stage the offsets which should be made.
It is very important that on 1st March in the morning those going to the polls should know exactly how many people the Government propose to dock off the register before working out the 40 per cent. requirement. It is only if people

know in advance what the figure is to be that any tears that the assessment of the 40 per cent.—which is necessarily in part subjective—has been influenced not by the true considerations but by the actual outcome of the vote can be overcome. It would be most unfortunate if there should be a whiff of suspicion that that is what has occurred. The way to avoid that is to publish the figure in advance, on the day. In regard to some factors it will be based on precise figures; in other cases it will be an estimate. Where it is an estimate, I urge the Secretary of State to publish as fully as possible the information on which that estimate is based, whether it is statistical material or whether it is survey material, so that a view can be formed.
I hardly need remind the Secretary of State that there are legal considerations. Although he has a subjective determination to make, he can be challenged in the courts if he takes wrong considerations into account or fails to take right considerations into account. If he asks his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence what I mean, he will be reminded of the Tameside case and be given some guidance on that point.
It is important, therefore, that the criteria to be applied—the objective tests, where they can be applied—and the subjective factors, where those have been applied—should be laid out as early as possible, and certainly by the date of the vote. But there are other questions to be asked. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, if the vote does not reach the 40 per cent. requirement, he will place the repeal order before the House at an early date?
It would be of assistance if we were given some guidance as to how long an interval the Secretary of State was anticipating between the holding of the referendum and the placing of the repeal order before the House if the 40 per cent. figure is not reached. I suggest that the period should be as short as possible so that there is as little uncertainty as possible in the Principality.
In the previous debate I asked what period is envisaged between the referendum and the holding of elections for the Assembly if the vote goes the other way. This is a matter of some importance, because the parties concerned will have to


organise themselves. It is right that they should know when the first elections will be held, if elections there are to be. I point out that Wales is blessed with the advantage of having no local elections in 1980. Therefore, it might be convenient that the first Assembly elections should take advantage of what I am informed is the situation in that year.
In any event, I also made the point that it would be wrong to hold the elections on the same day as the European elections or the General Election. In that regard, I hope that I shall get confirmation from the Secretary of State that he shares that view. I was slightly surprised to be told in the Scottish debate that it was odd that I should ask what period there will be between the holding of the referendum and the elections. I was told that that question had already been answered. I thought that perhaps I had missed some Written Answer on the last day of some parliamentary term when Hansard was not printed or that I had been dozing and that this answer was tucked away. But that was not the case. The answer was that the Government had made it perfectly clear that it was inappropriate to answer the question at this stage.
I did not regard that as being an answer of such clarity and definitive quality as to make it unnecessary for the question to be asked again. Therefore, I ask it again in the hope that from a more forthcoming and mellifluous Welsh voice I shall get an answer which will give some measure of satisfaction.
Of course, we support the passage of this order, but I hope that this time we shall have answers to the specific questions. I do not know how many times it is necessary to ask them questions before getting answers. How will the Government machine operate during the referendum, and at what cost? When will the repeal order be laid, if it is necessary to lay such an order because the 40 per cent. requirement is not met? What proposals do the Government have to ensure balance on radio and television, not between the political parties but between the "Yes" and "No" campaigns? If there is a "Yes" vote, when is it proposed that the first elections to the Assembly should be held?
I do not think it is asking too much to request the Government to provide

answers to those questions before the House approves the order.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: It would be churlish not to welcome the tabling of this order, because many of us have fought for it, and eventually the Government came around to our view. Some referendum boyos came early, some came late, but we are all referendum boyos now.
The order refers only to nuts and bolts. As to the problems of the register, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has satisfactorily answered the way in which the dead men's votes will be counted. The problem of Welsh exiles has not been raised, but that appears to be an insuperable problem. Equally, there is no easy solution to the problems of dual registration.
I wish to make only one brief point in relation to the 40 per cent. hurdle. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned his difficulties in objectively assessing of what 40 per cent. will be considered a proper total. This matter is clearly legislatively important and should be done correctly. But in my view its importance in practice can be overstressed, because the only respectable argument for the 40 per cent. hurdle—I personally did not support it—is that on an issue of this magnitude affecting the future of Wales we need to have a clear and fair endorsement.
If, in practice, as a result of a sufficiently large turn-out and a sufficient differential between the "No" votes and "Yes" votes, that endorsement impresses on this House that the people of Wales want to have an Assembly such as that proposed, it is inconceivable that this House would not accept that verdict of the people of Wales.
My own view is that, whatever legal difficulties there may well be about the definition of this 40 per cent. requirement, in practice it is unlikely to be a real difficulty when it comes to the House. That having been said, I need only to reiterate what has been said from the Conservative Bench about the need not only for a clear endorsement but also for a fair endorsement. I, too, ask for answers with regard to the ground rules for broadcasting and the extent to which


the public services will be mobilised in support of the "Yes" campaign.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made a very important point about the 40 per cent. I do not think that it is a question of the legal difficulties. If a very substantial majority is in favour of an Assembly, even though the 40 per cent. is not quite reached, I am quite sure that the House will take note of that and will decide that the will of the Welsh people is clearly stated and that we shall act accordingly.
I hope that people in Wales are today taking note of this point, because up until now Welsh people have assumed that there is a 40 per cent. hurdle. In fact, that is not the major difficulty. Therefore, people in Wales must realise that staying at home is not the same as saying "No". I hope that that message gets over clearly to the people of Gwent and Cardiff. They cannot rely on what they thought they could have relied on, which was that if 40 per cent. is not reached—and that 40 per cent. hurdle will be difficult to achieve—automatically the whole measure will fall. This debate will clearly make it known to all those people that they cannot rely on that. Therefore, they must come out.
I should like to make one or two remarks about the machinery for ensuring that the media are impartial. I realise that this is of great difficulty, because when the independent television authorities and the BBC are faced with the practical problem of whom they will put on their programmes, whom they will select to represent various points of view or whose speeches they will select for news items, they will be able to say, for instance, that on the side against the Assembly there will be Gwent against the Assembly, Labour elements against the Assembly, the Conservative Party against the Assembly and some umbrella organisation called "Wales Against the Assembly".
The media will always be able to argue convincingly, at least to themselves, that they can select one here and one there. But we shall want to know well in advance of the referendum—the people in Wales will want to know as well—that

there is absolute impartiality and that a machinery is set up which ensures that not only the "Yes" viewpoint is recorded and advertised, but also the point of view against an Assembly.
Whereas there is great respect for the BBC and HTV, and for the professional integrity of the people involved on practically every issue, there are not many people in Wales who actually believe that on the issue of devolution the same impartiality exists. Therefore, it is in their own interests and the interests of fairness in this referendum that the position is made perfectly clear and the ground rules established.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member referred to the term "machinery". What does he mean by that? How will such "machinery" operate? Does he accept that fairness is needed from the West of England transmitters which beam programmes to Wales, because their programmes are watched by people in his own area?

Mr. Roberts: West of England impartiality is very important. I admit that previously I had not thought about this. We want the BBC and HTV authorities to make perfectly clear their policy in advance. That is what I mean by "machinery". They should tell us and then we will have the means of consultation and the means of influence so that we will know whether there is the fairness that we all require.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It was generally thought in Wales that HTV and BBC were impartial in all matters. Then the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) tells us that they are impartial on everything, other than perhaps one topic—that of devolution. Is it not a fact that a substantial number of jobs leading to promotion in the media, as in politics, depend on the creation of an Assembly? Therefore, is it not a fact that people in broadcasting are personally involved in this decision in a way in which they are not involved in most other decisions?

Mr. Roberts: For the reasons that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has pointed out, and for a whole host of suspicions that we have on this matter, devolution is an issue on which we would not be prepared to rely completely on professional integrity in the


same way as we would be prepared to rely on it in the media's general approach to current affairs.
On the question of the two referendums being held on the same day, this is a decision I cannot really support. The position in Wales is very different from that in Scotland. Wales does not have to the same extent as Scotland a national daily press. We have the Western Mail, which has a circulation of 90,000 and the Liverpool Daily Post, but in Scotland there is The Scotsman, the Glasgow Herald and a whole range of Scottish newspapers.
The newspapers that influence the Principality are national dailies of England. The Daily Mail has a circulation of 60,000 in Wales, the Daily Express also has a circulation of 60,000, the Daily Mirror has a circulation of several hundred thousands and The Sun follows closely behind it.
If the referendums are held on the same day, the opinions expressed in these newspapers will have a London perspective on devolution generally. If a London perspective is also put out by the BBC and ITN, as well as in the coverage of the national dailies, the Scottish argument will get the greatest emphasis because more people are involved. The Scottish Assembly has legislative form and there is a greater move towards independence in Scotland. This will affect English interests more.
I do not know what effect this will have on the campaign in Wales, but there is no doubt that it will have a significant effect. I do not know which way it will go, but the people of Wales will read and hear more about devolution in Scotland than in Wales. One just has to consider the viewpoint of the producer of news. If he has five minutes in which to produce something about devolution as a national item, naturally he will give three minutes to Scotland and only two minutes to Wales. I cannot believe that that is the best way to secure informed opinion in the Principality. For these reasons I regret that we are holding the two referendums on the same day.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In the debates on devolution it was argued by many that there would be a disadvantage if we were to have the referendum in Wales first. In those circumstances, if

we threw out the Assembly it would affect the Scottish electorate, which would think that if Wales did not want an Assembly, why should Scotland have one. It was argued that if the referendums were held on the same day one would not affect the other.

Mr. Roberts: I am aware of that point which has been made on a number of occasions. However, it is worth pointing out the consequences of following this course of action. As far as the newspapers and news bulletins in Wales are concerned there will be an adverse effect.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) would have argued against us with the same force and eloquence at his command had we chosen a day for the Welsh referendum which followed the Scottish referendum. He would have then claimed that we were rigging the polls.

Mr. Roberts: That is a typically uncharitable comment of the Secretary of State. I am not saying that holding both referendums on the same day is to the disadvantage of one side or the other. I am simply pointing out the consequences. I was expecting more sympathy from the Secretary of State, but then I am an incurable romantic.
When it comes to the selection of the date of 1st March, the Secretary of State said that this was the earliest possible opportunity and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) thought that it was a good idea. However, I do not agree. I think that the Secretary of State chose 1st March for a particular reason. He thought that it was an opportunist way to get a maximum vote for the Assembly in Wales. In order to do this, the Secretary of State, who looks after our schools in Wales, was perfectly prepared to disrupt a tradition. He laughs and jeers at tradition, but the Assembly will be voted upon on St. David's Day. I am aware that there are occasions when our schools have had to hold their celebrations at other times when St. David's Day falls on Saturday or Sunday. But in 1979 it falls on a Thursday.
The people of Wales will recognise—and those who support an Assembly will say that it is a good idea because it will


maximise support at the polls—that the Secretary of State had an ulterior motive. This date was not the earliest opportunity, it was an opportunist moment to get the maximum number of votes.
The Secretary of State may say "You are joking", but I do not think that the Lord President of the Council, who was involved in this decision, knows much about it because he is an Englishman. The Secretary of State, however, is a Welshman. He knows full well that St. David's Day is a day when we are united, when there is no division among us whatever our political views of Assemblies, independence for Wales, or of any part of the union of the country. But the Secretary of State has chosen, whatever he may say, to make this day a day of disunion. If he believes that the campaign will not illustrate, for a time anyway, the sharp dichotomy that exists in Wales, he does not understand what the campaign is all about. In an opportunist way he has chosen the date, and he has divided Wales at the same time.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I find the enthusiasm of both Front Benches for the referendum ironic, and I am sure, as has been indicated in the interventions, that Wales will remember—we must remind it—that there would have been no referendum were it not for the Welsh Labour Members who took the initiative and wrested the referendum from the Government. It was done without any official Front Bench support from the Tory Party.
Wales, now having the opportunity to decide its future as a result of the initiative of the Labour Members, will not forget that it was done entirely without support from the Liberals or the nationalists at the crucial time when it was still possible to seize the opportunity for a referendum.
The nationalists and the Liberals wanted what I call compulsory democracy. The pro-devolutionists came along with a spurious scheme of devolution. They stated repeatedly that there was overwhelming public support for it in Wales. It was clearly indicated by all the organisations that were listed from the Front Bench, by the nationalists and by the Liberal Party that we were an

insignificant minority, that we represented no one but ourselves, that we did not understand Wales and that we knew not of the resonances and dissonances within the Principality. Well, who understands Wales? Is it understood by those whose experience of the country is limited to certain areas and certain sub-cultures? Or is it understood by those Labour Members who have consistently insisted that the voice of Wales must be heard, as now it will be heard, in the referendum?
I am not surprised, given the choice of 1st March, that there is concern about how the campaign will be conducted, particularly in the media. No one likes February campaiging. Although the worst victims, in terms of securing a good turn-out, of this miserable, silly, squalid opportunist notion of selecting St. David's Day will be the Scottish electorate, given the climate there, in Wales, too, it is a most inappropriate choice. I do not want to be provoked by the jeering of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State at the conclusion of the speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts). When the date was announced, I said immediately that it would disrupt the schoolchildren. But it goes further than that. Those of us who remember St. David's Day when we were at school have a lingering memory of why we wore the leek or the daffodil. Although, happily, in the charm and elegance of our school ceremonies, we buried some of the primary reasons for our celebrations, we were reminded by our teachers that the leek was to distinguish between Welsh and English fighters.
I do not think that that is a happy augury for the selection of a day which, by its nature, will evoke memories of less happy times when the kingdom was divided. What interpretation will be placed on the selection of a day which has such unpleasant chauvinistic overtones, a chauvinism so alien to the whole international mood and spirit of the Welsh Labour movement? It is sad, given that devolution could mean the creation of grave divisions within the United Kingdom, that a day should be selected which. because of its background, could wretchedly evoke memories of other days when there were genuine divisions which we hope will never recur.
The selection of that day almost disbars, given our sort of weather, the possibility of campaigning outside the media. It is therefore all the more important that the debate should concentrate upon how the media will handle the referendum. Clearly we shall be heavily dependent upon how the matter is presented. For the reasons that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West has already indicated, given the distribution of newspapers and so on, the campaign will be heavily dependent on the television and radio beamed into the Principality.
There are already certain guidelines about how the time is to be allocated between those in favour of the Assembly and those against. BBC Wales has taken special precautions to continue to ascertain opinion in Wales. The only yardstick we have, beyond our subjective feelings and declarations, is the opinion polls which the BBC has conducted. Up to last week the polls indicated that the majority of people in Wales were opposed to the Assembly.

Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Member confirm that the poll to which he refers, which was held last week, showed that the element most in favour of the Assembly in Wales was the young people in Gwent, where over 50 per cent. were in favour?

Mr. Abse: I shall not be drawn into the minutiae of the argument. I am describing the general view, which must be accepted. It is, so far as we can ascertain opinion in Wales, that the majority of people have indicated quite clearly that they do not want an Assembly.
We are not addressing these remarks only to ourselves or to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that we are also addressing them to the chairman of the IBA, to the director-general of the BBC, and to the head of the Welsh BBC Service in particular, to ensure that they, as independent organisations, will be utterly scrupulous in ensuring that a proper proportion of time is allocated.
On the evidence which the BBC has produced, it is abundantly clear that more time should be allocated to those who are against the Assembly than to those who are for it. What other evidence do we

have? My right hon. and learned Friend laughs.

Mr. John Morris: He does.

Mr. Abse: My right hon. and learned Friend repeatedly categorised all the organisations which he said demonstrated beyond doubt that Wales was overwhelmingly—that word was used again and again—in favour of an Assembly. Instead, every fact, as far as we have it, indicates the contrary.

Mr. John Morris: My hon. Friend is relying on polls. If, on the mere evidence of one poll, he suggests that that should be used as the basis for the allocation of broadcasting time, perhaps he will recall the poll carried out by the highly reputable BBC in May 1978 when the division, on this calculation, was 40.8 per cent. for and 40.8 per cent. against. What does he make of that? If he refers to one poll, he might as well refer to more than one. Does he seriously suggest that allocation of time should be on the basis of any particular poll which happens to occur on one particular day? Does he seriously put forward that proposition?

Mr. Abse: No, I do not. My right hon. and learned Friend has cited an out-of-date poll which indicated an equal division. I am saying that the last thing that can be done by the IBA or the BBC is to suggest that, because officially the Liberal Party, the nationalists and officially the Labour Party are in favour of devolution, there can be a division of time which could mean that those who are anti-Assembly have less time than is awarded to those for it.
I repeat that on such evidence as exists —the rest can be subjective feelings—everything seems to indicate that the majority at the moment is against, and the BBC and the IBA have to take that into account. They always take it into account in other cases. They divide time proportionately. This time, if they are to act on past principles in dealing with a novel situation, they cannot be in breach of what is their traditional approach.
It is equally clear that those such as the Labour "Vote No" campaign, the people who support it, the people responsible for having precipitated the referendum, having been the dynamic against the Assembly, must have their own independent separate voice. The BBC


and the IBA cannot expect that they can mould the Labour "Vote No" campaign and compel us to appear with those who may have come to the same conclusion as we have but for wholly different reasons.
After all, the same consequences often arise from very different motivations. One can say that celibacy and virginity can both result in the same consequences but there is, as it were, a different motivation as to how those consequences are reached. Similarly, between the Conservative Party and ourselves there may be many different reasons why we come to a conclusion. I know, for example, the main reason why I am opposed to an Assembly. I do not want Wales to shrink into a parish pump, and I believe that the Assembly is a violation of the international spirit which has always informed the Labour Party in Wales. I cannot expect Conservatives to say that that is their reason.
I believe, again, that the Assembly, if it came into existence, would inevitably mean a diminution in the leverage and power of the Labour Members in this Parliament and, more, it would mean a diminution in our numbers in the end. Because, therefore, I believe that it would result in making Labour Governments less likely in the future, I am opposed to the Assembly. But I cannot expect Conservatives necessarily to take the same view when they proffer their reasons why they are against an Assembly.
So it is important, and it will be requested by the Labour "Vote No" campaign, that the BBC and the IBA recognise the existence of a substantial independent body of opinion that has a reluctance to fight this campaign except on its own feet. My right hon. and learned Friend may have different views. He has appeared on platforms with Plaid Cymru and Liberals, and he has offended and wounded deeply, as my right hon. Friend the Lord President has, the Labour movement in finding that he thought he could have such misalliances.
The independent Labour campaign that we are going to conduct will not have funds behind it. We shall not have gone, as my right hon. and learned Friend may have gone, with people to importune Transport House and try to get money

out of it after the Government have decided that no funds were to be allocated. We shall not have funds.
If, unfortunately, the Labour Party has allocated funds for this campaign, it has allocated those very funds that have been contributed by the many constituency parties in Wales which are wholly opposed to devolution. So we shall not have funds. We shall be rich in argument but poor in money. Therefore, since this campaign must not be decided by the use of money but by the use of argument, all the more reason why the BBC and the IBA have a very special responsibility as custodians. They are independent bodies. They must be prepared on this occasion, if need be, to make clear that they are prepared to distance themselves from any manipulation from any official channels and make sure they do it with balance.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West has indicated his apprehensions about the in-built biases that he may feel exist. That has been expressed many times on this side of the House on major political issues. The BBC therefore must be particularly concerned, especially in view of the appointment of very good officers in charge of the news but who have very commited views. They are entitled to their views.
The new head of news in Wales for HTV has written many editorials, good in style but poor in content, attacking me and many others who take an anti-devolution stance. I do not challenge his right to his own views, but with an appointment of that kind—he is a very able young man—it is important that he should be aware of his bias and guarded against it as every other person in HTV and the BBC must be guarded against any self-indulgences.
Let me indicate, with the approval of those Labour Members who share my view, that we shall shortly be approaching the BBC and the IBA on this issue in order to have full clarification as to how, independently, our point of view is to be put forward on the media.
It is important that there should be such an agreement because, unfortunately and unhappily, the doctrine of collective responsibility, dissolved at the time of the Common Market campaign, has been revived, with the consequence that, as is


well-known, Ministers who are either opposed to or churlish about an Assembly are not to be allowed to speak out as they freely think. It is an open secret in Wales. I would not embarrass anyone by indicating who those Ministers may be, but if that is the position—I trust that none of them is in the Welsh Office—whoever they may be, if they are to be silenced, it is even more important that the Labour "No" voice has an opportunity of being heard. I believe the real Labour voice to be the anti-Assembly voice.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member was present during the debate on the Scottish referendum. Does he agree that the Government are giving a bad lead, certainly to Scotland and presumably to Wales, because only the official parties will be consulted about attendance at the count?

Mr. Abse: I was not so worried about observers being at the count, but I was anxious that a principle should be enunciated by the Government because it seemed that only official channels would be used. I welcome the readiness of the Opposition to make clear that there should be a fair division of space and time on the media. I trust that the IBA and the BBC realise that the Conservative Party's view takes into account that there are divisions of opinion within parties. I expect the IBA and BBC to take them fully into account.
I hope that we conduct the campaign constructively. I hope that the arguments will be unfolded in a way which will mean that when a decision is taken all of us will accept it, whatever the result. I trust that there will be no rearguard action.
If the decision is that there is to be a Welsh Assembly I shall accept it bitterly, and I shall regret it. I trust that that is also the view of the Secretary of State for Wales. I know that the last word will be said not by the people of Wales but by the House. The emphasis and the interpolations of the Secretary of State seemed to indicate that he expected rearguard action if there were marginal differences which could be explained away by specious arguments. I trust that we shall all accept the decision. I hope that even Plaid Cymru will accept the decision. That party never wanted the referendum

until it saw that the people of Wales wanted it. Then, belatedly, it tried to climb on the bandwagon.
The referendum will give the Welsh people, and in particular the Labour electorate, the opportunity to say that they want no division, that they believe in the unity of the working people of Wales, England, Scotland, Ireland and the rest of the world. I hope that they will show that they do not want anything that will frustrate the attainment of that much yearned-for millenium.
I hope that the Welsh people will use their votes. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West has emphasised the importance of everybody voting. Small vociferous minorities can sometimes so deceive people and themselves that they imagine that they represent the whole people. In this case long-suffering, English-speaking Welshmen in Gwent and Cardiff need to vote to ensure that the disadvantages that will come from devolution—spawning bureaucracy and the inevitable divisions in the unity of the kingdom—do not occur. I hope that Wales will have a high vote and that it will be seen that the campaign is a massive irrelevance which diverts attention from the real problems of unemployment, the health services and communications. I hope that at the end of the day, with all this behind us, we shall give our attention to the real problems, undistracted by fanciful distractions.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: We are discussing a referendum involving the biggest improvement in Welsh government which has ever passed as a measure through the Houses of Parliament. I want to deal with the 40 per cent. provision which is a wrecking clause which was agreed by the opponents of the devolution principle in order to defeat a democratic decision.
We have had only one experience of a major referendum—the EEC referendum. The London media covered that referendum for weeks. The people were excited by the issue which involved many deep principles, including the sovereignty of Parliament. In spite of those weeks of propaganda from both sides of the argument and an excited interest, only 65 per cent. of the people voted. That was regarded as a high poll. If only 65 per


cent. of the people voted after all those weeks of propaganda by the major media elements in London, how many can we expect to vote in referendums which involves only Scotland and Wales?
The London media will show little interest in the referendums. Little time will be given on London television. We shall suffer from a lack of education on the issue. As a result, the turn-out will be smaller than that in the EEC referendum.

Mr. Fred Evans: I wonder whether the hon. Member is not over-playing that point. I understand that in local government elections the percentage poll in Wales is astronomically higher than that in similar elections in England. In by-elections the same enthusiasm is reflected. The Welsh people seem to be natural and addicted voters.

Mr. Anderson: It is a political nation, thank the Lord.

Mr. Fred Evans: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) should not denigrate the ability of the Welsh people to recognise what is in front of their eyes and to do something about it.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: If we were voters of that kind in Wales in referendums—and I am speaking not of elections but of referendums—that would be a different matter. But we have experience of referendums in Wales. We have had them on the closing of public houses in Wales, and we find that only a tiny proportion vote. If we had a provision for a 40 per cent. vote written into that kind of referendum, held every seven years, one after the other, all the public houses in Wales would be closed on Sundays.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the people of Wales are not sufficiently interested in the Assembly to come out and vote for it?

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am suggesting that people come out and vote in a referendum when they get sufficient news about it and when their interest in it is awakened sufficiently. I pointed out that in the EEC referendum, 65 per cent. turned out. If we had a 60 per cent. turn-out, that would be very good for a referendum of this kind. But if there were

a 60 per cent. turn-out, in order to win the referendum the pro-Assembly people would have to get two votes for every one against it. That is desperately unfair.
That is what we should concern ourselves with most of all. We have to protest against the fact that the people who do not vote, who are not concerned and who do not care whether there is a Welsh Assembly are the very people who may decide the issue—the "Don't knows". However, the people who really matter are those who take the trouble to turn out. The people who really care about the issue will vote on it. Surely it is enough to have a majority of those who really care to ensure that the Assembly is established.
My quarrel is not with the referendum. It is with the 40 per cent. rule, which is a rigging of the referendum against the pro-Assembly people. In fact the 40 per cent. rule makes opponents of those who are neutral. I think that this is entirely wrong. If the 40 per cent. who did not vote in a 60 per cent. poll were divided amongst themselves, I think that it would be found that they were equally divided between those who were in favour and those who were against an Assembly. But they should not matter. As I say, the people who matter are those who take an interest in democracy and who are prepared to turn out in a vote of this kind. I think that we should have insisted on that at the beginning. It was a great mistake to include this provision in the Wales Bill.
As we have heard, there are thousands of people who will not be able to vote, for various reasons. We have heard from the Secretary of State about those who will have died in the interval between the preparation of the electoral list and the day of voting. We have heard, too, what will be done about the students. I am glad to hear that these matters are being taken into account. But we have not had a satisfactory explanation of what will happen to those who have changed their addresses in the period between October and 1st March, those who have gone out of the country, or those who may have gone on holiday to seek the sun at that time of the year. They will not be voting, of course, but they count because they are in the 100 per cent., and that makes the difficulty of getting 40 per cent. even greater.
Incidentally, I have been told by many Welsh exiles in England that they would be glad to be able to come back to Wales to vote on this issue. I wish that they had the opportunity, but probably that is quite impossible.
This unscrupulous rigging of the referendum by this 40 per cent. rule has caused great resentment among Assembly supporters in Wales. If the vote is lost because of the 40 per cent. rule, despite having a good majority in favour, this House will have created a situation in which the resentment will smoulder and may break into flame.

Mr. Anderson: What the hon. Member does not appreciate is that the matter will come back to Parliament. If there is a sufficient differential here, does he not accept that it is inconceivable that Parliament will fly in the face of the clearly expressed view of the Welsh electorate?

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: What is a sufficient vote? Let us suppose that 35 per cent. were in favour of the Assembly and 25 per cent. were against it. Would that be a sufficient vote?

Mr. Anderson: Yes.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I wonder whether the House would interpret it in that way. I am sure that the Conservative Opposition would not so interpret it.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: We would.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am glad to hear that, because that has been one of my greatest worries about this. We have never demanded anything like this proportion for the election of a Government. I do not think that any single parliamentary Government since the First World War has had 40 per cent. of the vote. The present Government had only 29 per cent., yet they are the Government of the land. The imposition of this undemocratic condition in the referendum is quite unacceptable.
We know that the Conservative Party will fight hard against the Assembly. It has fought against every major advance in Wales. I have drawn attention previously to the furious opposition of the Conservatives to the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. That was the greatest separatist measure we have had. It separated the Church in Wales from the Church of England; it separated the

Church in Wales from the State. It was a great separatist measure, but everyone in the Church in Wales now says that it is the best thing that ever happened and I do not think that even the Conservatives would argue that the Church should not have been disestablished.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The leader of the Scottish National Party has said that he sees the creation of an Assembly in Scotland as the way to independence. Is that the hon. Gentleman's view of the creation of a Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I accept the measure as a great improvement in the government of Wales. We have always accepted such measures, including, for example, the creation of the Host of Secretary of State for Wales. The Conservative Party opposed that. We have argued for years in favour of an economic council for the development of our economy. We now have the Welsh Development Agency. The Tories also opposed that. They have opposed every measure that has taken Wales forward to any great degree.
The Conservatives' arguments are weak. They talk about bureaucracy, but the purpose of devolution is to have democratic control of the bureaucratic layer of government that exists in Wales. We have a bureaucratic tier of government and we want it to be made answerable to elected representatives. That is a valid argument in favour of devolution. It is an advance of democracy and we welcome it. Conservatives complain about the cost. I was told in answer to a recent Question that the running cost of the Assembly would be less than ½per week for each person in the United Kingdom. Democracy has to cost something and it could hardly cost less than that.
Although there are some Labour Members who do not approve of the Assembly, the battle is between the Welsh people and the Conservative Party—as Mr. Dai Francis so truly says. Perhaps I should say that the battle is against the Conservative Party and the CBI. The Conservatives complain about the Government giving aid to the "Yes" campaign, but I wonder whether they will complain when big companies give thousands of pounds to the "No" campaigns in Scotland and Wales. We shall look forward to finding out how much the CBI will


contribute to the campaigns against the Assemblies.
The 40 per cent. rule must be accepted by my party and the Welsh people as a challenge to be overcome. I am sure that it will be overcome. If it is not, we may have the unacceptable situation of an Assembly in Scotland—that looks almost certain—and perhaps even a sort of assembly in Northern Ireland, while Wales is left without a voice. We cannot contemplate that possibility with favour.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I am pleased to be called to speak following the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). I shall return to the matter of the 40 per cent. qualification at a later stage, but in many debates on this subject I have put a number of questions to the hon. Member for Carmarthen and his hon. Friends the Members for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) about where they stand on the question of independence. However, I have been given varying answers.
Do those hon. Gentlemen regard the Welsh Assembly as the means by which they can bring about the separation of Wales from the rest of Britain? They have refused to answer that question. Therefore, we can only assume that the hon. Member for Carmarthen holds the same view as the leader of the SNP, who sees the creation of an Assembly in Edinburgh as a means by which that party will achieve independence in Scotland.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Gentleman pays Plaid Cymru too high a tribute. It is not Plaid Cymru which will decide on the next step—indeed, that step will be decided not by any one party. It will be decided by the people of Wales. No step forward can be taken without their support. Does the hon. Gentleman have any faith in the people of Wales?

Mr. loan Evans: Of course I have faith in the people of Wales. That is why I demanded a referendum. I suggested that we should have the referendum on St. David's Day. I have enough faith in the people of Wales to know that on that day celebrating our patron saint they will throw out these proposals. Therefore, let

the hon. Member for Carmarthen not accuse me of having no faith in the Welsh people. Of course it will be the people of Wales who will decide this matter.
We are talking of the day of decision—namely 1st March. But I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he and his party intend to use the Assembly as a means to separate Wales from the rest of Britain. Although he says that Plaid Cymru will not do this on its own and that it will be the people of Wales who will decide, I remind him that it was the people of Wales who in the General Election lost Plaid Cymru 27 deposits. That is how the people of Wales are thinking and acting.
My main point is to emphasise that in supporting the creation of an Assembly, the nationalist parties of Wales and Scotland believe that there is no hope immediately of convincing the people, because support for the nationalists in both areas is declining. The nationalists see these assemblies as the launching pad that will bring about the breakdown of the unity of the people of Britain. They want to bring about that end in this way because they know that they have already failed at the ballot box.
The fact that we are having a referendum shows that we have faith in the people. There is no greater act of devolution than letting the people themselves decide. We in this Chamber can argue the merits or demerits of creating an Assembly. However, we need to know whether there is an overwhelming demand by the people in all parts of Wales that an Assembly should be created. That matter is now to be put to the test.
It is carious that when the Government introduce a provision stating that such a vote must amount to at least 40 per cent. we are accused of rigging.
The hon. Members for Carmarthen and for Caernarvon and others, including the Liberals, voted for 33 per cent. Presumably a third is not wrecking. We must therefore determine whether three out of nine or four out of 10 is wrecking. It is a strange argument that three out of nine, which they supported, should not be wrecking, but that four out of 10 should be wrecking. We have been told that when all the people on the register who are under 18 are deleted—and I regret that—

Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: I shall give way shortly. I think that all those of 18 or approaching 18 should participate. In parliamentary elections we have given the vote only to those of 18 and over. I should like to see all those over 18 or approaching 18 who are on the register being allowed to vote.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with distorting what happened on the vote on the 33 per cent. He knows that my colleagues and I and others were against both the 33 per cent. and the 40 per cent. However, we regarded 33 per cent. as a less pernicious alternative to the 40 per cent. It requires an 80 per cent. turnout to get a close run referendum on a fair basis with 40 per cent. and only 66 per cent. with the 33 per cent. threshhold.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman need not try to justify himself. Of course, he will say "We voted for devolution powers for the Assembly, but that is not what we really want. We want independence. The Assembly is the lesser of two evils." Of course the hon. Gentleman will use that argument. We know where the nationalists stand. It is no use arguing—I hope that it will not be used in the referendum campaign —that there has been an attempt to rig the result because some voted for 40 per cent. and others voted for 33 per cent.
I am glad that we are to have the referendum on St. David's Day, not on St. Andrew's Day–30th November. The registers would have been outdated by then.
Some of us have talked about not taking account of a derisory decision by the people of Wales. We should not have a referendum with a turn-out in which the people of Wales vote 12 per cent. for and 10 per cent. against devolution. That would not be the will of the people of Wales. There must be an incentive to encourage people to vote. I believe that having a minimum requirement will lead to a maximum turn-out. The importance of a minimum requirement is to avoid the desire by those who advocate the Assembly having a quiet campaign in order to get those who are deeply disturbed about the proposals to abstain.
It is a pity that we do not have the finance that was made available to both sides in the Common Market campaign. I am not, of course, saying that the Common Market campaign was fair.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: No. It was 10 to one.

Mr. Evans: I know that financially the proportions were 10 for the pros and one for the antis. I am suggesting that the Government should give equal amounts. In the Common Market campaign, those who were for or against the Assembly were allowed to distribute one leaflet through doors. But the Government had a second bite at the cherry and sent out another leaflet.
I think that there is an argument for finance for this campaign. The call for finance has come from both sides of the House. In Committee there was a call that sufficient funds should be given to both sides of the campaign to ensure that the people of Wales understood the case being argued for and against the Assembly.
What must be realised, particularly by the media in Wales, is that this issue cuts across party boundaries. There are those in the Labour Party—on the Government Front Bench—who believe that the Assembly will be a method of unifying the people of Britain. This is quite different from the view of the nationalists, who see it as a method of destroying that unity. The Government's intention is to create unity. This was stated in the first clause of the Bill—a clause deleted by the House.
There are those in the Labour Party who are for an Assembly. I would hazard the guess that there may well be those on the Opposition Benches who would form a "Conservatives for the Assembly" lobby. Certainly the two Liberal Members representing Welsh seats claim to be in favour of the Assembly. Yet among Welsh Liberals there are those strongly opposed to the creation of the Assembly in Cardiff. We may well have a Liberal organisation acting against the Assembly.
We all think that the nationalists are united on this issue. Yet there has been division at the annual conference. Whereas nationalist Members are voting in favour of the Assembly because they see it as a method of bringing about independence, there are other nationalists,


sticking to their principles of complete independence from the rest of Britain, who have said that they should not be seen to be arguing for this half-way house. They want all or nothing.
The 40 per cent. qualification is justified. The Government brought forward proposals to amend the figure because of some confusion which they said existed. However, it is now established that it is 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote, not 40 per cent. of those on the register. We hear talk of unfairness. It is said that dead people cannot vote. We have received an assurance from the Government Front Bench and we know that those nonsensical arguments will not arise.
I hope that we shall have a tolerant campaign and that we shall avoid dealing in personalities. Because there are these differences cutting across boundaries, it is vital that the broadcasting media in Wales, BBC and HTV, play this down the middle. I do not say that we should accept opinion polls without question. The Western Mail poll showed a majority of people in Wales against the Assembly. The "Swansea Sound" opinion poll, taken in a number of constituencies in west and mid-Glamorgan showed a majority against the creation of an Assembly. We have heard of the first BBC poll, overtaken by a second poll. The first showed a majority opposed to the Assembly, while the second showed the majority to be the 9ther way.
We should not be guided by opinion polls. Instead we should say that half the time available should be given to those who are for the Assembly, with the other half being given to those who are against it. Then there should be discussions, not through the usual channels, but between all of those who are for and against this proposal. We must not forget the nationalists and the Communists and all the other parties. They must be given time, too. We would need a definition of "proportion". Those of varying shades of political opinion should be allowed to put their case, whether they are in favour of the Assembly or against it. Those who are arguing for the Assembly have varying political views, just as those who are against it have.
I know that we do not want to delay too long on the order, but a number of

questions that have been asked in the debate have still not been answered. I hope that before the people go to the polls they will receive the answers.
What will be the consequences of the creation of an Assembly for the financial support now given by the House to the people of Wales? There has been no answer. We do not know the method whereby the Assembly is to be financed by this House. It is difficult to see how we can expect the people of Wales to vote for an institution when they do not know the method by which it will be financed.
We do not know what is to be the future of the Secretary of State or the Welsh Office. We still have not had a categorical guarantee that we shall have a Secretary of State with a Cabinet position.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I know that in a debate on the order it is very difficult to deal with the sort of contributions that my hon. Friend is making, but he must be aware that whatever decision is made by succeeding Parliaments is not a matter for the present Government. However, the Labour Party's view is that the Secretary of State for Wales will remain, and remain as a member of the Cabinet. My hon. Friend is doing less than justice to his own argument to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Evans: I am glad that we have that assurance. We cannot bind succeeding Parliaments, but this is the first time the commitment has been made, although the question has been put before, that when there is an Assembly the Secretary of State for Wales will continue, but of course with much more limited functions.
What is to be the future of the representation of Wales? Are we to have in the House the same number of Members for Wales? Presumably we cannot bind future Parliaments on that matter either. Northern Ireland had a certain representation when it had Stormont. Stormont has been lost, and in this Session we are talking of increasing Northern Ireland's representation here. If an Assembly is created in Wales and Scotland, will the number of Members here be reviewed?
Although we have given the Assembly the function of examining local government reorganisation, before we decide


whether to have an Assembly we must ask ourselves what is to be the future of the county councils and the district councils.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I think that the hon. Gentleman knows full well that he is transgressing well beyond the purposes of the order.

Mr. Evans: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been very tolerant.
It is important that the questions I have put be answered before the decision is made by the people of Wales. If the people of Wales reject the Assembly, as many of us expect, the Government must begin to look at the alternatives already. There are certain problems that the Assembly is intended to remedy. Those problems will remain. I think of the need for more democratic accountability of quangos and the question of having in Wales a body composed of Members of Parliament and representatives of the district and county councils. I hope that the Government will examine the alternatives and have them ready for 2nd March. That is when we shall have to consider these questions earnestly.
I hope that there will be a massive turn-out of the people of Wales, not merely a 40 per cent. turn-out. If there is a massive turn-out and if the people of Wales consider the issue on the basis of the interests of their people, they will maintain the unity of the people of Britain. They will not wish to endanger that unity. It is the purpose of the nationalists to try to create a body in Cardiff that will be the launching pad for separating the people of Wales from the rest of Britain.
I believe that at the end of the campaign the people of Wales will utter a loud and clear "No". When that loud and clear "No" is given in the referendum, let us consider the issues that have arisen in the debate and put things right.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I welcome the order. I am sure that that is the view of the majority of the Welsh people. I am sure that they welcome the opportunity to vote on 1st March and to record a "Yes" vote.
Generations of Welshmen have come and gone. Many of them were staunch devolutionists, as are many of us now present in the Chamber. Many of them fought hard for the principle of devolving power to the people of Wales. They were denied that right by successive Governments. I pay tribute to the present Government because proposals have been put forward to devolve power to the people of Wales. The proposals are not acceptable to all of us, but the principle remains—

Mr. Fred Evans: For the sake of the unenlightened such as myself, will the hon. Gentleman please devote a little time to explaining what he means by devolution?

Mr. Howells: At this late stage I am sure that it will be difficult to enlighten the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will respect my view, as I respect his.
When the Prime Minister announced during the debate on the Queen's Speech that the referendum was to be held on 1st March, St. David's Day—Dydd Gwyl Dewi—the majority of the Welsh people, especially the young, accepted the decision that it was to be held on that day. The Prime Minister and the Government could not have chosen a better day on which to hold the referendum. The people of Wales will have the right to pray and vote for Wales on St. David's Day. The children will not be denied the right to celebrate. They will be celebrating by carrying leeks and daffodils and watching their parents going to vote for an Assembly for the people of Wales.
I am not unduly worried about the 40 per cent. hurdle. I take the view "Throw whatever you like at us". I and my hon. Friends believe in the Welsh Assembly. The challenge of the 40 per cent. requirement has been put before us by the anti-devolutionists. I am convinced that, once the Welsh people rally, they will surmount that hurdle with ease on St. David's Day.
I draw attention to one technical difficulty. There are many English students in Wales. There are many in my constituency. There are two universities in Ceredigion and there are thousands of English students. They have the right to vote in Wales and at home. Many of them have approached me and said—I respect their point of view—that because they are English they do not think that


they should become involved in any way with the Welsh referendum. I hope that the Minister will clarify this technical difficulty.
If they do not vote on 1st March in Wales, will that upset the net result or percentage of the vote at the end of the day? These students are worried because they do not wish to be involved. They believe that it is an issue for the Welsh people.

Mr. Abse: As Englishmen in Wales, they should speak for Britain. They should vote "No".

Mr. Howells: I respect the point of view of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I always respect an Englishman for being English. I always respect a Welshman for being Welsh.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said that he would be canvassing very hard against devolution. This is well known in Wales, and I am convinced that all the other Conservative Members from Wales will fight hard against devolution. But I give this advice to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he comes to Wales on 1st March, I am sure that he will regret his visit, because he will not be on the winning side.
As a Liberal, I shall work as hard as I can to convince all Liberals in Wales, and all the supporters of the Welsh Assembly, to vote "Yes" ar Dydd Gwyl Dewi.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: The world of politics is a weird and wonderful one, as we all know in this House. My mind goes back to November 1975, when I put down an early-day motion calling for a referendum to be held in Wales on the subject of devolution. I had the magnificent success of collecting three signatures, including my own. Later I saw the momentum with which this idea grew, so that a year and three months later, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) pointed out, we had the signatures of 150 Members of Parliament, and knew that we were achieving success. I am quite sure that that success will be maintained.
The other quirk of politics that we have seen is that everyone now assumes that a referendum is a good thing. People cover themselves with the cloak of sanc-

tity in their utterances on this subject. It was not always so. The Secretary of State for Wales fought vehemently against the idea of a referendum. The Labour Party annual conference turned down the idea of a referendum. Some of us still insisted that the people of Wales must have the opportunity to express their point of view. We knew that we had won on the day when we saw the Leader of the House coming post-haste to the House of Commons—obviously after some Cabinet consultations—to announce that the referendum would be held.
Although many of us do not accept referendums as a normal feature of government in this country, it is no bad thing, when there is a vital issue about the future of people, and particularly when it is a constitutional issue, to have a precedent upon which to call in the final eventuality.
Like many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I am deeply concerned about my own country. I am an internationalist to the core but, like all good internationalists, I believe that there is a special corner in one's affections for the part of the world in the environment of which one was brought up. It is with that feeling that I approach the question of devolution. Not everyone does. I can remember the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) one weekend giving even the Government's appalling attempt at devolution a lukeward welcome. By the Monday his tone had changed to one of condemnation. Then it veered back again. The following Monday the Scottish nationalists announced that they would fight devolution tooth and nail, whereupon the hon. Member for Carmarthen echoed the Scottish nationalists and said "They are right". Lo and behold today, like many others, he has become a perfervid supporter of the ideas which he denigrated not so long ago. Of course, as politicians we all realise exactly why.
The questions with regard to the so-called ground rules must be answered before the referendum is held. It is now nearly a year since I wrote to the Prime Minister, and put a Question on the Order Paper, about the costs of the referendum. The assurance which I was given—I still have the letter and the copy of Hansard —was that the Government did not foresee that they would incur any financial


expenditure in a referendum campaign. Whether financial costs can be assessed directly or indirectly is a question that we ought to have answered. If Government publicity agencies are to be used, then again those of us who have fought elections know how substantial the cost can be of organising the kind of propaganda which one wants. We think that the people of Wales are entitled to some kind of statement about this.
I am not quarrelling with the Government's claim that they are implementing policy. I and many of my hon. Friends could argue about how it came to be laid down, but I do not enter that into the dispute or, indeed, the right of the Government to make the attempt to allocate funds. But as democrats in this House we do have a right, as do the people of Wales, to expect some kind of declaration of the total financial involvement.
Because of the Prime Minister's reply, which has obviously been handed to the appropriate Ministers, attempts are to be made to get funds from elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool referred to some of these. An approach was made to the central Labour Party in Transport House. The same applies to Scotland. The feeling in the House was that the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who has been a staunch fighter throughout this campaign, emanated within a matter of 24 to 30 hours immediately on our return after the recess and gathered well over 100 signatures because it objected to the use of resources for this kind of purpose.
I find something immoral in the attitude which says "We know that people in Wales who contribute to a political party may be opposed to the idea. Nevertheless, we shall ask for moneys from the central body in order to finance the thing." Nineteen Welsh constituencies are opposed to this idea. If they were approached direct for contributions, I am afraid that the answer which would be given would be a very dusty one indeed. Therefore, such a request has to be made to the centre.

Mr. Dalyell: As the person who collected the signatures, I must point out that I got exactly 100 with very few refusals. As soon as I got 100 I told the

Labour Party general secretary, Mr. Ron Hayward, that for reasons of time I thought that that was enough.

Mr. Evans: My impression was that there were 100 signatures, but that was not made clear in The Times report on my hon. Friend's efforts. We have the right to this kind of information, because the more we have the opportunity to put the viewpoints across to the Welsh people from both sides, the better it will be for everyone, the less back-biting there will be afterwards, and the fewer attempts to back track later.
There are many things that one could say about this matter. I challenge the people who refer to those of us who have resisted this measure as "anti-devolutionists". We are not. We believe that power should be brought as close to the people as possible. We do not think that power locked behind four walls in a futile institution such as the Welsh Assembly can really give power to the people. What further democracy will be given to the Welsh people by this institution? What further benefit will be conferred in social terms? The answer is none.
Every bit of devolution, in its true sense of bringing power close to the people, could have been obtained through the reform of existing institutions. We could have used the local government machinery very effectively had we overhauled its functions. It would have been possible to see a great devolution of power to all-purpose authorities, replacing the district councils. It may have been that the county councils would have to disappear in the interests of these authorities, but to keep adding tiers of government with additional expense and bureaucracy is not the answer. We must return to the true conception of devolution.
We must see that people have the full opportunity to share in decisions that affect their daily lives. This is all too often forgotten by politicians. This is what is meant by improving the quality of life when one gets to the root of it. By giving this sort of power to people, they will organise their communities, insist that power is as near to them as possible, and judge those who are wielding that power. This is the true essence of devolution.
I hope that on St. David's Day—and I share some of the reservations about the choice of the date because of the implications of working up an emotional reaction which is not the way to win this referendum—the people of Wales will say that, although they want to have more share in running their lives, they do not see this as the way to do so. I hope that they will tell the Government to take back this form of devolution and come up with something better.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: One thing on which we are all agreed is that we should encourage as high a vote as possible. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who opened the debate for the Opposition, was right to make that point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) was right to emphasise that staying at home is not the same as saying "No". It is in the interests of all, whatever their views on this issue, that there should be the highest possible vote.
I express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for the way in which he helped to clarify some of the issues concerned with the problems of meeting the 40 per cent. requirement. It would be useful if he could give us fairly soon some indication, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland did on the previous order, of the number of student nurses and people in similar positions who have multiple registration.
I do not see an easy solution to the problem of those who have dual registration because they have two homes in Wales. I do not pretend to have a solution. I declare an interest. I am dually registered in Wales, to vote in two parts of the country, and there are others—I can think of a number of people who work in Cardiff and have homes in West Wales or elsewhere in Wales—who will be registered in both places. What is important, as my hon. and learned Friend emphasised, is that the Secretary of State should make known in advance the basis of his declaration. He should make absolutely clear, before people go to the polls, the basis on which he intends to work so that there can be no accusations afterwards that he has fixed the result.

I am sure that he will take that advice and follow it.
My hon. and learned Friend put a number of important questions that I believe require answers. I hope that we shall have answers to them in this debate. I have a couple of specific questions. To one of them I am sure that we shall get a satisfactory reply.
Hon. Members will be aware that the ballot paper is bilingual. That provision is included in the Act. Schedule 12, paragraph 10, of the Act provides that the Welsh Language Act should apply in relation to the order. May I have confirmation that it is intended to print the relevant forms described on page 16 in Welsh as well as in English. This relates to form E and the other forms that are delivered to voters in their homes before an election. We ought to have clarification on that point.
Another matter on which I hope that the Minister who replies will be more understanding and more helpful than his Scottish counterpart is on consultation over observers at the count. It seems to me wholly wrong that this should be confined simply to members of the official parties in Wales. It seems unquestionable that there will be umbrella organisations, or organisations of one kind or another representing both sides of the question. It large and responsible organisations are taking part in the campaign they should be consulted on this issue and indeed on the other important question to which I will turn, that of broadcasting.
I hope that the Government will not stick to the decision, indicated by the Government Scottish spokesman, that they will listen only to the official political parties. I hope that they will be wiser, certainly in Wales, and, as they have said they intend to do on all other matters, take account of the views held in this House. It cannot be challenged that it was widely felt in this House that those consultations should have a wider basis than has been indicated so far. Schedule 12 of the Act provided that the order we are now discussing
may…make provision as to the conduct of the referendum".
The phrase
the conduct of the referendum
is very broad and wide ranging. I admit that a subsequent provision narrowed it


somewhat by stating that it should not impose a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
Nevertheless, the order need be concerned not just with the nuts and bolts but with the whole conduct of the referendum. It is a striking feature of both the contribution by the Secretary of State and of the order itself that it is narrowly based and makes no provision for the general conduct of the campaign, and no view has been expressed by the Government on the important questions that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly on broadcasting and the financing of the campaign.
The media will have an extremely difficult time. I do not envy them—I say that at once. I have no doubt that those concerned will try very hard, whatever their individual views may be, to treat the matter fairly not only in their discussion programmes but also—and this is important—in the news broadcasts. I feel that here again any consultations that take place by the broadcasting authorities should involve the principal organisations taking part in the campaign.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) emphasised that people would be campaigning for different motives, and that he might not wish to be associated closely with those also campaigning for the same end but for different reasons. But the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was right to emphasise that we must get an overall balance so that those representing the "Yes" vote are balanced against those representing the "No" vote, whatever groups or political parties they may come from.
It would be valuable if the BBC and IBA were to indicate at an early date that they will be having wide-ranging consultations and will publish the basis on which they intended to conduct the campaign. It would have been helpful if the Government had expressed a view on this, and I hope that the Minister will make some comment even at this late stage.

Mr. loan Evans: May I clarify the position? I think that there is no difference between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). What he is aiming at and what I am suggesting is that there should be an equal

division, with half the time allocated to those who are for the Assembly and the other half given to those opposed, and that within each of the two halves there must be consultation, not just with the main parties, but with the various groups within the parties, as to how that hall is to be allocated. I think that I made the point more categorically than my hon. Friend did.

Mr. Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point so clear, and I agree with the way he has put it. I think that that is the basis on which we should proceed. It convinces me, if I needed convincing, that if we are to have referendums there is much to be said for laying down ground rules in advance and for some kind of commission to supervise their conduct, which was a principal recommendation of a Conservative Party committee that I chaired. I think that there are difficulties in trying to make the rules as we go along—we are seeing some of them in our debate today.
One reason why there are to be no rules about financial help is the considerable advantage that the lack of a clear statement of the position gives to the Government and the "Yes" campaign. That has emerged throughout the debate. In addition to the money that is being offered by the Labour Party and the trade unions to obtain a "Yes" vote. the full and massive weight of the Government's public relations machine, including handouts from public relations men, will be thrown behind the campaign. All the effective and powerful machinery that is available to Ministers in order to publicise their views and prepare their cases will be used.
If that is so, I cannot understand why the Government do not come clean and say that that is the situation. They should say clearly that massive resources will be available so that people clearly understand the arguments.
This is an important matter. If there is to be a referendum campaign, and if people are to be able to judge the strength of the arguments, those who take the decision should have information about the volume of resources and the nature of the campaign. It is also important that those who are against the measure realise what it is that they are up against. They will have to use all


their energies in the campaign to win it or even to obtain the necessary resources.
We have heard declarations about the funds that will pour in from industry. The CBI has said that as an organisation it will not finance the "No" campaign. As one who is helping to organise the campaign, I wish that the declarations were true. The "No" campaigners will have to use considerable energy to match the resources used against them.
Perhaps the most significant item in the the order is the date—1st March. Whatever the motives for selecting that date, it is already clear that the supporters of the Act hope to make use of the date to create a wave of patriotic enthusiasm, to build up an Arms Park atmosphere and to smother fact and argument in a simple appeal to Welsh loyalty.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) indicated at a recent conference that he will present the case on that basis and that he will expect the Welsh people to vote "Yes" on grounds of patriotism and loyalty. The supporters of the measure have already made it clear that they intend to denigrate those who oppose the Act as being hostile to Wales and enemies of the Welsh people. A whole series of abusive and emotive epithets will be hurled at us.
On a weekend television programme recently, the Lord President of the Council, glorying in his new found and hastily donned Welsh patriotism, took the lead by describing opponents of the Act as reactionaries and aliens.
I do not believe that the Welsh people will be spoofed. They know how widespread is the opposition to the Bill. They know that it embraces different political parties and different groups in Wales. They know the strength of the Labour opposition about which the hon. Member for Pontypool spoke with justifiable pride because of the part which he has played in the campaign. They will not be diverted from condemning what they believe to be bad for Wales. They know that huge sections of Welsh opinion oppose the measure, and they will resent deeply this attack upon their loyalty and their Welshness. I think that it is an attack which will rebound upon its perpetrators.
The selection of 1st March is surely an attempt to play the joker of patriotism

and, with it, to trump reasoned argument. Having failed virtually to find anyone to defend their Bill in the House, the Government are now trying to escape the need to find anyone to defend its details in the country.
Those in all parties who will campaign that Wales says "No", lacking the resources available to the Government and in the face of their appeal to the emotions of the Welsh people, will seek to expose the Act for its flaws—those same flaws which were exposed day after day and night after night in this House without adequate answer and hardly without challenge. They will argue that it will create conflict where no conflict now exists, that it will weaken local government, making it more remote from the people, that it will damage greatly the position of Welsh Members in the British Parliament and indeed in the British Cabinet, and that it will create an unresolvable dilemma about the future working of this place—the dilemma which was so exposed so vividly by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
The people of Wales are too shrewd to be taken in by this attempt to rig the result in the closing stages of the game by choosing the day that the Government have. They will see through the tactic, and I am confident that they will reject the Act.

9.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I suppose that with typical Welsh modesty I might be tempted to describe this debate as an historic occasion for Wales. The debates on devolution both inside this House and outside it, both today and on many other occasions, have gone on for a very long time. The passage of the Wales Act involved a great deal of the time of this House, and I am sure that all of us, whatever our views about devolution, agree that it has been a very long haul.
We are now coming to the end of that long journey. It seems to me that it is a journey on which some hon. Members —the zealots—wished that we had gone further. Others who I describe as the cautious—those who wear both belt and braces—may think that we have gone too far. However, I think that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members believe that it has been an essential journey. Had


it not been, Parliament would not have passed the measure which enables us to debate this order. To pretend otherwise is nonsense.
I was amazed by the tremendous heat engendered by article 4 of the order, which provides:
The referendum shall be held on 1st March 1979.
I think that we would have had the same objections whatever date had been put in article 4. The objections are not basically to the date. They are objections to the principle of devolution.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) said that he would have welcomed a suggestion from the Government to hold the referendum on two different days. I have to confess to the hon. Member that it was a temptation that I found very difficult to avoid. If we had had separate days for the referendums, we would have been accused of manipulating them. We could not win. One of the strongest opponents of devolution is my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and he thinks that 1st March is a very good day for holding the referendums. That indicates that there are different views and it is not possible to satisfy every hon. Member.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I do not want the Minister to misrepresent what I said. I was not criticising the fact that the referendums are to be held on the same day. I was merely pointing out that the consequences of that would disadvantage the "Yes" campaign. That was a legitimate point to make and I was not suggesting that the votes should be held on different days.

Mr. Jones: I assumed that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that as the consequences of holding the referendums on the same day were so severe, we should have held them on separate days. If I misunderstood him, I profoundly apologise. That was, however, the impression that he gave me.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed the need for a fair referendum.

Mr. Abse: There are 365 days in a year. Why have the Government chosen 1st March? Was it just a coincidence or was it because that is St. David's Day?
Why was St. David's Day chosen if not for the most miserable, chauvinistic reasons?

Mr. Jones: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not give me the opportunity to explain why that day was chosen. The referendums are being held on 1st March because that is the first Thursday on which it is possible to hold them under the new electoral register. If we are to have a fair result, it is important that we should use as up to date a register as possible

Mr. Michael Roberts: No one believes you.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman may not believe us, but dragging in the suggestion that we may upset school celebrations of St. David's Day is a load of nonsense. I have celebrated St. David's Day both as a pupil and a school teacher in Wales and I must say that they have been very tame affairs compared with the sort of language that hon. Members have been using about the referendums destroying the celebrations, arousing tremendous passions and invoking uupleasant overtones. The greatest attraction of St. David's Day celebrations for pupils was that we had the afternoon off school.
It is important to use an up-to-date electoral register. In all the elections in which I have taken part I have found that the older the register, the greater the dissatisfaction because so many people were omitted for one reason or another. An old register makes things much more difficult. It was perfectly reasonable for us to decide to use an up-to-date register and that brought us to 1st March. The suggestion that our choice of 1st March will have a tremendous effect on the people of Wales is a slight on their intelligence.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) asked about the number of students who would be entitled to vote. I shall give the House some figures and repeat some of those given earlier by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State so that they will all be in one place in Hansard.
The present register is 2,065,045. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there would, using last year's register, be 26,000 young people under the age of 18 and we can expect that about 14,000 people would have died since the register


was compiled. There are about 8,300 Welsh students in Welsh universities. A total of 2,650 students receive living-at-home grants. It is reasonable to assume that they would be registered only at home. That would leave a figure of 5,650 as the maximum number of students with a possible double registration. If we add to that number nurses and junior medical staff, it gives a figure of 6,500 students who may have double registrations. It is a complicated problem and we should try to ensure that we use figures that are as up-to-date as is humanly possible. If we obtain better figures, I shall pass them on to those hon. Members who are particularly interested in the subject.
The publication of figures before 1st March was also mentioned. That figure would include deductions. This is a widely held view and we should take it into account. However, there are technical and legal difficulties. We are giving the most careful consideration to these points because we appreciate the desirability of taking such action if it is at all possible.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Pembroke about bilingual forms. If the order is made this evening, an order will be made under the Welsh Language Act 1967 which will prescribe Welsh versions of the statutory forms to be used in the referendum. Therefore, that point has been taken into account.
I now turn to a subject which has caused a great deal of concern, namely, the subject of broadcasting time and the media. Many hon. Members suggested at the outset of their remarks that the media in Wales have up to the present time been fair and honest and have treated all parties on a par. However, there was then a big "but", because it was said that on this occasion the media would not present such a balance. It was suggested that that balance would become fairer if we as a Government were to take certain steps. I do not think that one can add to the impartiality of the broadcasting media by some kind of intervention by the Government of the day on any particular issue.
One hon. Gentleman said that although he was addressing the House he was, as it were, also addressing himself to the chairmen of the BBC and the ITV autho-

rities. I am sure that those gentlemen will be interested to read his contribution.
The matter of broadcasting time is a proper matter for the broadcasting authorities. They have an obligation to ensure that so far as possible due impartiality is preserved. It is up to the broadcasting authorities to decide whether to allocate time to campaign organisations. It would be a dangerous step for the Government of the day to intervene in that respect.
The debates on devolution have now been going on for a very long time. Some of my hon. Friends who oppose devolution have certainly not been absent from the television screen. The viewpoints for and against devolution have been well and truly expressed in television programmes.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Minister's remarks are helpful because they illustrate the kind of view to be taken by the media. However, does he appreciate that the usual balance on the television screen is between the three political parties on one side and one party on the other? The problems for the media is not that they lack integrity, but that they are facing an entirely new situation.

Mr. Jones: I do not think that the media are facing such an entirely new situation. I recall some of the television programmes which took place during the EEC referendum campaign. We then had Members from all parties and people from odd organisations lining up on both sides of the argument. I do not think this would be an insurmountable task. I am sure that the media will exercise their responsibilities in an impartial way. I must say that, whether on the Front or the Back Benches, I would not take kindly to too much Government interference in this situation.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I think that my hon. Friend is possibly conceding the point which has been made. Of course, we would expect both the IBA and the BBC to be impartial and objective. However, we contend that equal time should be given to those who are for and those who are opposed to the Assembly. Does my hon. Friend support that contention, which has come from both sides of the House?

Mr. Jones: Impartiality does not mean giving 80 per cent. of the time to one


and 20 per cent. to the other. That would be an odd definition of impartiality. The broadcasting authorities have an obligation to maintain impartiality. It is certainly the Government's wish and my personal wish that they should maintain that degree of impartiality throughout the campaign.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend accept that what bothers us is not the allocation of hours or minutes on one side or the other, but a far more subtle issue--namely, that if there are prejudices inside a broadcasting organisation, it can get a good presenter of a case on one side and a bad presenter on the other? Is not the fundamental distinction between the EEC referendum and this referendum that, frankly, there are considerable interests inside the broadcasting authorities who want these plans to go ahead? We all know that with an Assembly in Edinburgh—I speak with less certainty about an Assembly in Cardiff—there will be many extra jobs and avenues to promotion in broadcasting. It would be naive not to recognise that here and now.

Mr. Jones: Obviously hon. Members perform differently on the box or on the wireless. If the only solution were that I, as a Minister, should pick who should speak for the "Noes" and who should speak for the rest, the result would be even worse than allowing the choice to be made by the broadcasting authorities. Naturally I should pick some hon. Members, and others I might care to drop. We cannot place this matter in the hands of a Minister. It must be left to the broadcasting authorities.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that those who work for the media will be influenced, because of their interest pro- and anti-devolution, because they feel there will be better job prospects by selecting certain people to appear on the screen. That would be to make the BBC and ITV far too machiavellian in that respect.
I was asked about party political broadcasts. These will, of course, follow the normal rules. Parties have allocations of broadcasts. Even apart from General Elections they use those broadcasts whenever they wish. There has been no suggestion that we should call

off party political broadcasts because of county council or district council elections. We do not have much to fear in that respect. We are merely maintaining the same position regarding party political broadcasts.
If ministerial broadcasts are to be made, the normal rules, including the right of reply by the official Opposition, will pertain. I am not envisaging masses of ministerial broadcasts on this issue.
Another matter which has caused a great deal of excitement is the use of Government machinery. I find this difficult to understand. I had always understood that the Government had the right to ensure that their policies were carried out. I do not recall any great objections to the actions of Governments who have been in office, duringthe time that have been in the House, when they have used Government machinery to put forward their own policies. At the time of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act I do not remember any squeals and yells to the effect that it was unfair.
We are saying that the only ministerial costs which will be met from public funds will be those associated with the activities of Ministers fulfilling official engagements, at which they will be explaining, and advocating of course, the Government's policy on devolution. The Government information services, and other branches of the Civil Service will be used only to the extent that is necessary to continue to explain the Government's policy on devolution. Obviously civil servants will not take any part in party political activity. That is not something startlingly new. It is something which Governments always do. The Tory Government used government machinery to advocate policies which they were convinced were for the benefit of the people.

Mr. Britton: Does not the Minister agree that there is a distinction between using the Government machine and the money involved in putting forward a Government policy generally, and doing so in the context of a referendum campaign when there is no other side which is comparably equipped? The relevant comparison is with a General Election. In a General Election the Government machine cannot be used to put forward the views of a political party, even if it is the party which is in power.

Mr. Jones: This is nothing to do with the General Election. This is a Government in the course of their lifetime advocating certain policies which the House has accepted. It seems reasonable that they should use the normal machinery of government. When I heard that neither the "Yes" campaigners nor the "No" campaigners would have any money I began to think that we would be without any campaign.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) asked about English students living in Wales who chose not to vote. If that happens it will have the same effect as if the votes were "No" votes. That is one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) in criticising the 40 per cent. rule and its implications. The Government accept the Act, which includes the referendum, warts and all.
It is important that we seek to ensure a fair expression of the views of the people of Wales. The best way to do this is to aim for as high a poll as is possible. The Government believe that the people will endorse this proposal. While I know that not everyone shares that belief, I am sure that I am on common ground when I say that it is important to ensure a high poll. For that reason, I hope that all who are eligible to vote will be particularly careful this year to check that their names are on the draft register which will be available

for inspection at public libraries and council offices between 28th November and 16th December.
It is worth reminding people that often they may have to consult more than one register. Some areas have a register which shows whether a person has been taken off the roll and another which indicates whether he has been added. It is not quite as simple as we sometimes suggest, but I stress the importance of ensuring that there is full registration.
For a similar reason, I believe that people who think that they are entitled to a postal vote should apply to the local registration officer as soon as possible. It is not necessary to wait for anything before applying for a postal vote, as long as one is qualified.
The referendum seeks the views of the people of Wales on the Act and its implementation. Whatever the outcome of the poll—and I have no personal doubts about the verdict—the order is a watershed in the long debate on devolution and the giving of power to the people of Wales. The order will give them and subsequently Parliament a chance to turn debate on devolution into action on it.
I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Wales Act 1978 (Referendum) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES)

10.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
The order has two main purposes. The first, which is set out in part II, brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom with respect to the prohibition on the sale of tobacco to young persons under the age of 16 years.
It has long been accepted that smoking is potentially damaging to health, and this is particularly true in respect of children. It has also been asserted that the best way to stop smoking is never to start, and it is significant that the majority of children who may begin experimenting with cigarettes at the age of eight or nine go on to become regular smokers as adults.
At present Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where it is legal to sell cigarettes to children under the age of 16, and this has been so since 1950. This part of the order is designed, therefore, to limit the access of such children and young people to sources of cigarettes and tobacco.
In January 1977 the Ulster Cancer Foundation launched a publicity campaign to motivate public opinion to press for the introduction of legislation to control the sale of tobacco to children and young persons. This campaign has received widespread support and I am now happy to introduce this legislation.
Article 3 makes it an offence to sell tobacco or cigarette papers to anyone apparently under the age of 16. An exception is provided, in respect of the sale of tobacco, if a shopkeeper did not know and had no reason to believe that the tobacco was for use by the person who purchased it. This will still, therefore, enable parents to send children on errands to purchase tobacco, but the exception does not extend to cigarettes or other material designed for immediate smoking.
Article 4 similarly seeks to limit the access of young people to automatic vending machines selling cigarettes, and provides for legal proceedings to be taken against persons owning machines, or on whose premises they are kept, where machines are used extensively by young persons apparently under the age of 16.
Article 5 provides for the seizure of tobacco and cigarette papers from persons apparently under 16 and for the disposal of seized goods. Following consultations with the Northern Ireland Chief Constable and the district councils, it was decided to restrict the powers of seizure to members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and RUC Reserve. It is recognised that there may be difficulties in enforcement, but the deterrent value is seen as the main benefit of the legislation.
Article 6 provides exemption from the provision of this part of the order for persons employed in the trade, and article 7 defines some of the expressions used in this part of the order.
The other main purpose of the order, set out in article 8, is to improve the standards of primary care in the Northern Ireland Health Service. The article introduces, from a future date to be decided, a period of compulsory post-registration vocational training for doctors wishing to become general medical practitioners as principals.
The National Health Service (Vocational Training) Act 1976 introduced a similar provision in Great Britain. As that Act did not extend to Northern Ireland, a statement of intent was made by the Government at the time indicating the intention to introduce similar legislation for Northern Ireland, to be effective from the same date and on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
A voluntary vocational training scheme has been in operation in Northern Ireland since 1966 and was one of the first such schemes in the United Kingdom. The training course lasts three years, two of which are spent in hospital posts relevant to general practice and the third year in a training practice. In introducing the mandatory scheme, the Government have the full consent of the medical profession.
Details of the new training arrangements will be a matter for regulations, but


the order provides that the medical profession must be consulted before these are made.
I should, however, make clear now the categories to which the new compulsory arrangements will not apply. They will not apply to general practitioners already providing a full range of general medical services when the new arrangements start nor to doctors employed in general practice as locums or assistants. They will not apply to doctors who have in the past been general practitioners with the health services, although consultations are to take place with the medical profession to decide whether some conditions might be attached to this—for instance, that a doctor's previous practice should not have been too far in the past.
In Northern Ireland, control over entry into general practice as a principal is exercised by the health and social services boards there, which are responsible for making arrangements with doctors for the provision of general medical services in their respective areas. Under the order boards will be given power to refuse, and indeed from a date prescribed by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland they must refuse, applications for entry to general practice as principals from doctors who have not been vocationally trained or who are not entitled to exemption from such training. The exemptions will be set out in regulations.
On the question of timing, I mentioned earlier that it was intended that the Northern Ireland provisions would take effect from the same date as those in Great Britain to ensure reciprocity. The Great Britain regulations have not yet been made and the appointed day is not expected to be before the end of 1981.
The remaining articles are concerned in the main with minor amendments to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. This order was the instrument by which the reorganisation of the health and social services in Northern Ireland was effected and experience has shown that these minor amendments are required for improved admini-

stration. Likewise, certain miscellaneous amendments to other legislation dealing with the health services have also been found necessary.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I shall not detain the House long in commenting on the order, to which the Opposition give their support.
Commendation should be given to the efforts of the Ulster Cancer Foundation, which drew the attention of the Government to the issues that the order is designed to meet and pressed for legislation on the sale of tobacco to young people. I am glad that Northern Ireland will be brought broadly into line with the rest of the United Kingdom as regards the sale of tobacco.
The term in article 3
apparently under the age of 16
will surely give tobacco sellers undue latitude. This feature concerns me slightly. Prime facie it would appear to enable tobacconists to defend sales to young people below the age of 16 years on the ground that they appeared to be over that age. The seller's judgment appears to have been made the sole criterion. Has that caused difficulty in the 1976 Great Britain legislation? I have heard this evening that there has been difficulty in enforcing that legislation and that the results have been disappointing.
Does the Under-Secretary of State know how many tobacconists a year have been convicted for selling their wares illegally? What sort of fines have been imposed? I think that the House would like to be in possession of that information.
We give our support to the second main object of the order, namely, the introduction of mandatory vocational training for doctors entering general practice.
The Conservative Party supported the 1976 Great Britain legislation and we support the order.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: It would be remiss of me if I did not address some of my comments to part II of the order, although I do not want to deal with it in great detail. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member


for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will catch the eye of the Chair as he is interested in the matters there contained. He has had that interest for a considerable time and he has done much to encourage the people of Northern Ireland—especially young people—to face the problem and danger of smoking. He speaks with greater authority than I as one who has never smoked. He is able to speak with a certain degree of authority and experience.
I welcome the articles contained in part II of the order. I hope that the reporting of the debate, even at this late hour, will be such as to encourage more and more people seriously to view the injurious habit of smoking.
I turn to part III of the order. As one reads the recurring and therefore operative phrases such as "suitably experienced", "prescribed experience" and "equivalent experience", when looking at the vocational training, some questions naturally arise. We appreciate that the order is based on the National Health Service (Vocational Training) Act 1976, and that in turn these provisions are consolidated in sections 31 and 32 of the National Health Service Act 1977. But nowhere, either in the two Acts or in the order, do we find a real or working definition of vocational training. I know that the Minister touched briefly on this point, but I should like him to return to it and to give us some definition of what he means by vocational training and suitable experience.
For instance, what types of training experience are deemed to be suitable? What criteria have to be met to satisfy the definition of "prescribed experience"? The Minister dealt at length with those kinds of people who would not be subject to this provision, but he did not at any length define vocational training. How does it differ, for instance, from the normal professional medical training, or from the normal academia involved in qualifying to be a medical practitioner?
I understand that protracted discussions have taken place between the medical profession, the British Medical Association and the Department of Health and Social Services here on the mainland. I would be interested to know whether Northern Ireland representatives from the

medical profession in the Province have been represented in these discussions and have involved themselves in them. I was slightly perturbed to discover that the provisions would not become operative until 1981 at the earliest, but perhaps that is because of the very nature of trying to define and provide vocational training.
I turn to part IV of the order and to article 11. I read with interest the phrase
a voluntary organisation managing any premises".
It is stated:
The Department may make arrangements with any voluntary organisation managing any premises".
I appreciate that it is not envisaged to give either the authority or the power—or the finance, for that matter—to voluntary bodies to create massive residential homes. Nevertheless, we have discovered in Northern Ireland that even statutory bodies inaugurate residential homes and facilities in such a way as not to take into consideration the changes which those kinds of residential facilities effect in the neighbourhood.
If statutory bodies can sometimes fail to take cognisance of local feeling and local concerns, it is certainly conceivable that voluntary groups may not be aware, for instance, of the considerations of property value or even planning legislation. I ask the Minister to tell us what safeguards the Department can provide for residents who may be faced—not deliberately or not with any degree of antagonism but perhaps inadvertently—with a change in the character of a given area.
On article 12, I simply ask how the family planning service scheme has worked here on the mainland of Great Britain. There are those who will be tempted to feel that a family planning service such as that envisaged in this article might perhaps create two kinds of difficulty. There are those who feel that this kind of service may not easily, or with any degree of practicability, be introduced as a specialised pursuit into an ordinary practitioner's operation. What willingness has there been to incorporate this rather specialised service into the ordinary service provided by medical practitioners? Has the scheme neatly


fitted into each practitioner's situation? Have any difficulties been encountered?
There is also a rather specialised problem for those of a particular religious persuasion, who may not be at home in offering family planning services. Even this has not been encountered to any degree in Great Britain, I think that we can safely anticipate that some doctors with a particular religious persuasion may find it difficult to incorporate this into their total and normal medical service. Have any difficulties emerged on the mainland? Does the Minister envisage such difficulties arising in Northern Ireland?
As to article 13, I should like in passing to ventilate a remuneration problem of dentists. We appreciate that the relationship which a dentist has with the NHS is rather involved and perhaps peculiar, but dentists have encountered great difficulties in trying to make a profit from National Health Service work. This has had a rather detrimental effect on residents in Northern Ireland, because in many places there are not nearly enough dentists to serve a given community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) recently drew attention to the fact that there were only four dentists in his area to service a large number of people. Perhaps there are a number of reasons for that, but one which must be looked at very carefully by the Government is that until 1st October this year the amount of money which dentists could charge for work done under the NHS scheme was not very attractive. However, from the beginning of October, certain improvements have been made in that respect.
Much of the dentist's work must involve work done by technicians in their own laboratories. Before 1st October, a denture repair for which a dentist received £1·80 from the State was costing him £1·50 because he had to pay the technician. Thus, he made a grand total of 30p on each job. From 1st October the State increased the remuneration to £3. That seemed to solve the problem. But because the technicians are not controlled by the Government, they were able to increase the cost of the repair work to the dentist accordingly. The cost of such a job was increased to £2·50, so

the immediate effect was that that extra £1·20 was eroded. That has occurred because the technicians are not controlled by the Government and they can charge what they wish.
If in the determination of the remuneration paid to the dentists we want to maintain a comprehensive and viable service in Northern Ireland, we must control the prices paid to the laboratory technicians for National Health Service work. I commend that consideration to the Minister.
Article 14 deals with the provision of drugs, medicines and appliances. One must bear in mind the total well-being of society in this connection, and therefore the provision of drugs should include a description of what is contained in the various bottles, tablets and capsules. There is a growing feeling in this country, particularly among members of the medical profession, that we should adopt a system similar to that operating in the United States of labelling clearly all drugs. At present the Government are consulting the BMA on this matter.
The BMA held a conference this autumn and an important part of the agenda related to the issue of labelling drugs. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that not only should drugs be provided but that their provision should be accompanied by safeguards, particularly in the case of poisonous drugs, in the form of proper and comprehensive labelling.

10.23 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland Members should be very glad that hon. Members from Scotland and Wales curtailed their oratory today and got through their business in the proper time. This has enabled us to have this debate today instead of tomorrow. I thank them for their generosity. I was surprised that part of this order, which has no effect until 1981, was to be debated between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., had the Welsh and Scottish Members taken their full time. There are many more important matters with which we should concern ourselves rather than something which has no effect until 1981.
There is grave concern in Northern Ireland about the terrible disease of lung cancer. It is a matter of anxiety to everyone who is interested in the welfare of


the community. I believe that the restriction being placed on the sale of tobacco to young people will be welcomed by those with the best interests of the community at heart. There has been strong pressure in this respect in Northern Ireland from the Church bodies and the other welfare organisations. Even the tobacco interests did not militantly oppose the propositon. That, too, is to be welcomed.
Does the Minister believe that the law can be effectively implemented? The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) made an important point. It is hard for a retailer of cigarettes, tobacco and cigarette papers to determine whether a person is 16 or over. Will the Minister elaborate on that, and also, given the pressures being put upon them by the upsurge of serious terrorist activity and the millions of pounds' worth of damage caused in the Province over the past few days, on how he sees the RUC and the RUC Reserve dealing with this matter?
I have certain questions to ask about vocational training for medical practitioners. Article 8, paragraph (2)(d) states that particulars of experience will be submitted to a "prescribed body." May we be told something about that body and its membership? Or are we to take it that this is related to the drawing up of regulations under the order? May we be told tonight something of the composition of that body?
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) asked other questions on this matter. I think that the relevant point is who will constitute this body, who will decide on the question of prescribed experience, and who will have the applicant and the papers before them? Paragraph (5) of the article states:
Before making any regulations under this Article the Department shall consult such organisations as appear to the Department to be representative of the medical profession.
Does the Minister therefore feel that there will be consultation with the British Medical Association? Will he consult when he lists the regulations? What consultations has he had with Northern Ireland representatives of the medical profession in preparation for laying this order?
The various amendments to the principal order are in part IV. Will the Min-

ister confirm that the Departments have been making arrangements with voluntary organisations that manage certain premises to alleviate the conditions of certain people that the Government centres are unable to cope with? In Londonderry certain voluntary organisations have been called in continually to deal with those cases that the Government have been unable to handle.
To what extent does the Minister believe that the amendment will be put into operation across the Province, and in what spheres? At the moment there seems to be a degree of hardship because of the Department's inability to deal with certain matters. I am talking about people who have been "lifted" by the police and have had nowhere to. There has been the calling into operation of voluntary bodies to give them a bed for the night and to look after them. They are welfare cases, and these voluntary bodies are not receiving any Government payment for the services they render.
Will the Minister explain article 17 and why there has been a change of functions of these two Departments? Also, why is there a change in article 17(2)? Why are the functions to be changed over, one to the Department of Finance and the other to the Civil Service Department? Is there any strong reason for the changes?
I come back to my first point, and underline that the provision on the sale of cigarettes to young people will be greatly welcomed. Can the Minister give an assurance that the provisions of the order will be made clear in the schools so that the children may understand that it is now an offence to seek to purchase cigarettes? It is important that the young people should know the state of the law on this matter. I trust that the Minister will take steps to ensure that that is done.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Harold McCusker: It is said:
On average a smoker shortens his life span by about 5½ minutes for each cigarette smoked.
That is not my statement. It is a statement from the third report of the Royal College of Physicians, published last June. That is the message that we must get across in Northern Ireland, not only


to the children under 16, who up to now could legally purchase cigarettes and experiment with smoking, but to everyone in the Province who smokes. Each time he smokes a cigarette, a smoker shortens his life by the equivalent amount of time it takes to smoke it.
However, the report held out some hope, because it went on to say that if a smoker gives up smoking his extra risk of dying before his time disappears in 10 to 15 years. It highlighted some of the problems that the order tries to deal with. It said:
Between 2½ and 4 of every 10 cigarette smokers will die because of their smoking…cigarette smoking not only shortens life, it can also cause prolonged ill health.
It emphasised the importance of preventing young people from taking up the habit and said:
Some children begin to smoke at 5 years of age, and it has been found that about one third of adult regular smokers began before they were 9. About 80 per cent, of children who smoke regularly continue to do so when they grow up. The earlier in life a person starts to smoke regularly, the greater is the risk of early death. In view of the effects on school children, we urge that more attention should be given to the smoking problem in teachers' training and that teachers will not smoke on school premises.
The college further highlighted the problem by stating:
In 1975 a survey showed that out of a random sample of 50 tobacconists' shops in various parts of England and Wales 43 sold cigarettes to children who were obviously below the age of 16"—
even though this was unlawful. The college continued:
In Northern Ireland there is no law against selling cigarettes to children. Steps should be taken promptly to make this illegal.
It welcomes that the Government have now taken that step.
Making it illegal will not solve the problem. More problems are associated with it and we require the active co-operation of the tobacconists to ensure that the law is effective. I hope that the tobacconists will bear in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that the cigarette manufacturers support the order. The chairman of Gallaher Ltd. said:

I can confirm that I did tell Mr. Harold McCusker, MP, that Gallaher would have no objection to legislation that would bring Ulster into line with the rest of the UK regarding the sale of cigarettes to children under the age of 16. It is our policy through our salesmen to encourage shopkeepers to abide by the law.
The Imperial Group Ltd. Stated:
Clearly the introduction of legislation is primarily a matter for Government. It would, however, seem perfectly sensible to harmonise the present legal situation in the Province of Ulster with that in the rest of the UK. For what it is worth we as a company would have no objection to this.
Rothmans International Ltd. stated:
We together with the other UK cigarette manufacturers, consider smoking to be an adult form of relaxation and do not direct brand advertising promotions at children, nor do we engage in any activities that might encourage children to commence smoking.
I wish that I could say a wholehearted "Hear, hear" to that.
Manufacturers recognise that it is wrong that cigarettes should be sold to children under 16 years and they support the order. I pay tribute to them, the Ulster Cancer Foundation and the organisation which is associated with it, Action on Smoking and Health, and to its director, Mr. Mike Wood, for his endeavours on this legislation. I hope that I also played a small part. With the assistance of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), two and a half years ago I attempted to introduce a Bill on this matter.
The order contains the provisions in section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The wording is the same. It involves
any person who sells to a person apparently under the age of 16".
The Government have removed the provisions of that Act to empower park keepers to intervene. I do not know of any evidence which shows that park keepers have done much in Great Britain to prevent young people from smoking. I can see that there would be little point in introducing that power in Northern Ireland. It is sufficient that the police and police reserve should have the power to act. There are 10,000 of them. They have many major problems, but they must deal with this as well. They have the opportunity. I hope that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will mention the dangers of smoking when they visit schools to talk about road safety.
One cannot overstress the problem. The Ulster Cancer Foundation found that in Northern Ireland schools coughs and phlegm were present to an alarming degree in children who smoked as opposed to those who did not. In spite of all the health warnings and voluntary support by tobacconists to prevent children buying cigarettes, the bad example set by parents and teachers did not help. Since it was legal to buy the cigarettes children thought that it was all right to continue smoking.
Even if the order is defective in some ways, and even if it is difficult for the police to enforce it, I hope that our action in making it illegal for children to purchase these products will have a deterrent effect. I hope that parents who smoke will now stop the practice of sending their children to buy their cigarettes and other accoutrements, because that in itself encourages children to adopt the same habit.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I am in almost total agreement with what my colleagues from Northern Ireland have said.
I used to be an inveterate smoker. Until two years ago, I smoked 80 cigarettes a day, but it was not all that difficult to stop smoking. I have been in attendance, with the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) at associations and assemblies that were trying to advocate to young people not to start smoking and to those who were smoking to stop it.
Although there is no conflict in my own mind, I think that there must be conflict in those of other Northern Ireland Members. I do not want young people, or old people for that matter, to start smoking, because I believe that smoking has some relation to lung cancer. It is for that very important reason that I advise those who are smoking to stop and those who are not smoking not to start.
However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will understand me when I say that almost the same argument could be applied to the wearing of seat belts in Northern Ireland. I always advise people to wear seat belts, on the ground that their lives may thereby be saved in traffic accidents. But I do not have very much

support from my colleagues from Northern Ireland. They believe that people should not be forced to wear seat belts on the ground that if they want to kill themselves they should be allowed to do so.
I support the legislation contained in part II of the order, but I have some reservations about whether it is applicable in Northern Ireland. I hope that the day is not too distant in Northern Ireland when we have law and order in every district. But I do not believe that it is really practicable and realistic under article 5 that
A member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve may seize any tobacco or cigarette papers in the possession of any person apparently under the age of 16 whom he finds smoking in any street or public place.
Just let any member of the RUC, the RUC Reserve, or the British Army for that matter, try to implement that provision of the law in Turf Lodge, Ballymurphy or the New Lodge Road and see what happens. It is completely unrealistic, because great difficulty is experienced at the moment in trying to preserve other means of law and order. Certainly it will not be practicable or realistic within the foreseeable future, and it may be a long time before we can try to implement this provision.
I am taken aback by the crocodile tears which have been shed once again by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He says that the RUC should be able to implement article 5, but he is not doing much to help the RUC with his counter-demonstrations all over Northern Ireland. Perhaps he will call off his proposed demonstration in Armagh next week in order to allow the RUC to seize cigarette papers from youngsters in the New Lodge Road.
Legitimate questions have been asked by other hon. Members from Northern Ireland. Other parts of the order are equally important. Dentists' needs, the qualification of doctors, remuneration for dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services and the provision of drugs are matters of major importance. I have not received any representations, so I do not know whether there has been agreement or disagreement on the implementation of the order. Has the Minister had adequate discussions with the bodies involved? Has there been agreement? On


matters affecting the livelihoods and qualifications of dentists and doctors, it is important to have adequate consultations with those who will be affected.
With those reservations, I welcome the order.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to use part III of the draft order to make a protest that in North Down there are not enough doctors for the people of the area. Many people there live in small towns and villages in rural areas and they often find it difficult to get a doctor. I hope that the Government will provide more doctors in North Down as well as providing all the facilities and vocational training mentioned in part III.
No one can object to the aim in parts I and II of persuading children and young people not to smoke. Indeed, I look forward to the day of enlightenment when all smokers will abandon the habit because they recognise that it causes lung cancer and death, but I have doubts about the draft order. Hon. Members enjoy using their parliamentary muscle to push through legislation, thinking that it will transform their fellow citizens—though most hon. Members qualify that attitude by recognising that it may not transform the people at whom it is aimed.
The first part of the draft order is devoted to the creation of a new criminal offence of selling tobacco or cigarette papers to a person who is apparently under the age of 16. In addition, the police are given power to seize tobacco or cigarette papers from anyone apparently under the age of 16 who is found smoking in the street or in a public place.
I wonder whether the Police Federation or, more important, the policemen on the beat were asked to comment on the proposals and whether there was consultation with those who have to operate the English Act. It is recognised by those who know about the problem of young smokers that the English Act has not stopped children and young people smoking.
It is difficult for shopkeepers to determine whether a young person is under the age of 16 and if a child who is obviously under 16 wants to smoke he sends his older brother or a friend to

get the cigarettes for him. We should not be considering the possibility of putting a criminal offence on the shoulders of small shopkeepers. They already have a lot to put up with, especially in Northern Ireland.
Young people can get cigarettes from the automatic machines that we see all over the place. It is no use saying that the police can deal with that problem. We do not have enough police to stand guard on every cigarette machine in the Province. Indeed we have not enough policemen in the Province to man guard on essential services.
It is ridiculous for the Government to think that by legislating they can transform the young people of Northern Ireland. We must treat this matter seriously. I took the trouble to ask young people in my constituency what they thought about these proposals. They said "Why legislate against us? Why are not the elders giving a lead? Why do you not ban cigarettes altogether? If they are bad for us, they must be bad for adults. Surely the adults must give a lead."
It is sanctimonious and hypocritical for politicians in this House to lecture young people and children in Northern Ireland when those politicians do not take the opportunity to legislate on tobacco. No doubt the Minister will, in his usual flippant English manner, reply to the debate and stress the evils of cigarette smoking. We all recognise that cigarette smoking is an evil, but will he say why the Government only a few weeks ago gave a colossal sum of money to a cigarette firm in Northern Ireland to help it to manufacture more cigarettes to cause more lung cancer and more deaths? That is setting a terrible example to the young people of Northern Ireland.
The young people of Northern Ireland will say "You have given this colossal sum of money to a cigarette factory in the area, yet you seek to create an offence if a shopkeeper is tricked into selling cigarettes to an older boy for use by a younger one." The Government are giving policemen the power to go to a group of children who may be having a puff in the street or in a public place and seize tobacco.
What damage will flow from uniformed police descending on young people?


Those young people already have a problem with the police—not just in Republican areas but in other areas, too. I have problems in my constituency because some young people are alienated from the police. There are some bad youngsters, as there are bad adults, in Northern Ireland and in England. Looking at the Labour Benches, I think that perhaps there are more bad English adults than exist in Northern Ireland.
Why do we cause more hostility to the police in these areas? They will be the instruments of this Parliament in enforcing this draft order. I should like to see the young people and the police drawing closer together. Already in my constituency great headway is being made in community action. I want young people to regard the police as their guide and friend. Surely we should not be using the police to enforce this law.

Mr. Fitt: I have certain reservations of conscience on this matter. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government should not have given financial assistance to the Gallagher tobacco concern in Ballymena or its factory in Belfast on the ground that they were perpetuating lung cancer? Would he rather see those tobacco factory employees in the dole queue?

Mr. Kilfedder: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would pose such a question. The answer is simple. We all have a duty to set an example. What I ask those who spoke so sanctimoniously is: why not bring in a Bill to ban cigarettes altogether if they are bad for health and cause lung canger, as they do, and cause death?

Mr. Fitt: I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Kilfedder: If it is legal to smoke cigarettes, it would be nonsense to close down a factory.
Young children imitate their elders. They often see their heroes—pop stars, actors, actresses and others in public life —on television, on the cinema screen and on the stage smoking cigarettes. They smoke in imitation of them.
Should we not ban all smoking on television, on the cinema screen, and on the stage? Should we not ban all cigarette

advertising? Let us allow cigarettes to be manufactured for those who wish to smoke, but let us not allow young people to be persuaded to smoke by what they see on television and on posters.
The police in Northern Ireland rightly take the objection raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Indeed, this was the reason for my objection to seat belts. The police in Northern Ireland already have enough to contend with in dealing with actual or potential criminality of the most serious kind, as well as with the fiendish gangs of terrorists, without having to cope with the phenomenon of the affluent society, for which they need special training.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Affluent?

Mr. Kilfedder: It is the affluent society created by this Government, but that means a society in which inflation has whipped the people. That is the affluent society which the hon. Gentleman supports.
Why should we require the police to dissipate their energies on apprehending under-age smokers and seizing their smoking materials when they cannot cope with under-age drinking, which is a terrible problem? Why should we demand that they spend their time doing that when seemingly they do not have enough time to prosecute other offences?
The hon. Member for Belfast, West threatened that the trouble in Northern Ireland could continue for a long time.

Mr. Fitt: I made no such threat.

Mr. Kilfedder: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he clearly stated that he believed that Northern Ireland would continue to suffer from terrorism.
The police in Northern Ireland cannot go into some Republican areas. The IRA has already threatened rough justice, including shooting, to officials of the electricity and gas undertakings if they try to cut off supplies to householders in certain areas who have wilfully and deliberately failed to pay their gas and electricity bills. If the police cannot operate there, they certainly will not see whether kids are handling cigarette papers and tobacco and rolling cigarettes.
We have to ensure that the law we enact will win respect. How can we win respect if the law is not properly enforced? People in Northern Ireland have to pay larger electricity bills than people elsewhere because those in Republican areas are not paying all their electricity bills.

Mr. Fitt: And in other areas.

Mr. Kilfedder: Wherever they are not paying, I condemn it. Everyone should pay his fair dues. There are, in Northern Ireland, complaints that numerous serious offences are being committed—nothing to do with terrorism—and the Government and the bureaucracy do not seem to care. That is the feeling, whether it is right or wrong. The complaint is made that the police are busy dealing with terrorism, to the detriment of the detection of other grave offences.
For instance, proportionately more people died in road accidents in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Usually the deaths are the result of the driver of one car having had too much to drink. Yet there are not enough police available to catch all the offenders who drive dangerously or under the influence of alcohol, or to make some drivers drive with greater care and responsibility.
We have to ask whether this law will be respected. If it will not be enforced we should ask whether we are adopting the right attitude to this serious problem of smoking by children and young persons. We do not want to alienate young people from the police. We do not want young people to regard the police as the enemy. We should not create a situation which will lead to such hostility.
Is this new criminal offence, and the power to seize, the correct way of dealing with smoking, which is anti-social as well as being dangerous to health? The fact that a law has been enacted applying to England and Scotland does not mean that it is good law. Northern Ireland should lead the nation by putting forward proper proposals.
When I talked to young people they said "All right, if it is bad, ban it. Adults smoke, teachers smoke. Therefore, we think that it is all right." They will now have, unfortunately, the excite-

ment of doing something illegal. This may be a further temptation. Why jump with the weight of the law on young people in this way? They learn by imitation and see their elders smoking, some of them like Black Country factory chimneys. They see all their heroes smoking. We must remove that image of smoking. We should ensure that smoking is regarded as an evil.
The only way to do that is to ban all smoking advertising. I want young people and children to stop smoking. I want all people to stop smoking. But this is not the right way to go about it. We should counsel children and young people but should not use the weight of the law in this wrong fashion.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Article 14 of the order provides:
(1) Every Health and Social Services Board shall, in accordance with regulations, make arrangements in respect of its area for the supply to persons who are in that area of—
(a) proper and sufficient drugs and medicines and listed appliances".
I wish to ask one or two short questions about the supply of listed appliances.
I understand that in hospitals in the more rural areas, certainly in Coleraine hospital, people in the hospital are entitled to the supply of certain appliances free of charge, but out-patients must pay for them. My understanding is that in those parts people can be in hospital and have an appliance prescribed but leave before it is to hand. This means that they must return for its fitting as an outpatient, and consequently have to pay for it. That does not happen in the city of Belfast, where it can all be done in one day.
I have already had correspondence with the Minister's noble Friend about this matter in relation to Coleraine hospital. If the Minister cannot tell us this evening the reasons for the problem that I have described, I shall be obliged if he will take steps to be able to tell us the reasons later, and if he will correct the anomaly as between the rural patient and the urban patient.
The second matter that I wish to raise is perhaps peculiar, but not necessarily peculiar, to the Western health and social services board. It relates to the supply of certain orthopaedic devices. I am told


that, for example, broken appliances used by polio patients have taken up to three weeks to be repaired. I know of a recent case. One is never happy with the quality of the appliances. We recognise the great difficulties with which the designers have to contend, but the loss of a screw can mean that the person concerned is housebound, and possibly wheelchair-bound, or even bed-bound, for up to three or four weeks. This is unacceptable. What will the Government do about it?

11.7 p.m.

Mr. John Dunlop: For the rest of this evening and perhaps a few days I shall be wrestling with the heavy import of the term "flippant English answer from the Front Bench", and wondering what it entails.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is excused. He would not understand it.

Mr. Dunlop: I heartily endorse all that has been said about the dangers of tobacco smoking and the incidence of tobacco smoking among young people. I was kicked into giving up cigarette smoking by fear of losing my job. I was a teenage apprentice in a multiple grocery concern, where there were strict instructions against smoking during working hours. I had been caught twice by an English inspector, and his observations to me were anything but flippant.
I went home with the threat of losing my job if I was caught again. The inspector said "Just once more, Dunlop", and there was heavy import in those words. I knew that if my dad learnt that I had lost my job because I was smoking during working hours his response would have been to say "I'll murder him." That was in the hungry 1930s, and no alternative job was possible.
Therefore, I gave up smoking, and I am thankful that I did. I heartily endorse what my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) have said. I emphasise the need to educate young people against tobacco, never mind legislating it out of the country. We need to show them the, dangers. When I was a young fellow I heard nothing about lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other diseases that could come through smoking. It was just fear of losing my job that

led me to give up, and I am thankful that I did.
I wish to put two short questions to the Minister. He has been asked to define "the prescribed medical experience". I am sure that he will not give a flippant answer. I have lived for many years in the South Derry and East Tyrone district. I know of a doctor who came straight from college to practise in that area. He had no clinical experience. The comment of the general public in those days about that dear, good doctor and his operations was that he buried most of his mistakes.

Mr. Kilfedder: He must have been English.

Mr. Dunlop: In article 11(1) of part IV there appear the words
any voluntary organisation managing any premises".
I hope that the Minister will comment on the near completion of the hospital complex at Stranmillis, which has been built by voluntary contributions and will be staffed by voluntary consultants, specialists, general medical attendants and para-military services. Will any use be made of that organisation by the health services generally?

11.10 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would be a pity if the debate came to an end without a welcome being extended to the new Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). We have all of us greatly regretted the circumstances in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) has for some months been not fully able to perform his duties. We have noted that the new Under-Secretary of State is an additional appointment. We hope that- before too long the hon. Member for Kirkdale will be able to return to his duties, and that the Government are being helped to realise the impracticability in the long run of attempting to discharge the local administration of Northern Ireland through the agency of Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom.
As the order in part amends the principal order, the unfortunate Minister in charge of the order has been the recipient of many comments that relate much more


to the principal legislation than to the amendments that are being made.
The two minor matters that I wish to refer to relate to the amendments in part IV. One is in article 13, which inserts the words "the determination of". There is a story behind the amendment which is perhaps worth a brief mention. As the principal order runs, it states:
Regulations may make provisions for the remuneration of dental practitioners.
That was interpreted as if it meant that a regulation may provide that the Department may prescribe the remuneration of dental practitioners.
Very properly that Argus-eyed individual the Examiner of Statutory Instruments raised the question whether a power by regulation to make provision for remuneration included the power to make provision that somebody else may prescribe the remuneration.
The principal order has been made rather more of an honest woman by the amendment, but there remains a residual and rather serious question, namely, whether even with the amendment the principle is correct that matters so essential to the working of the health services, matters which more than one hon. Member has observed involve co-operation between the professions and the administration, should be dealt with by less than regulation and should, as they are at present and as the amendment will make possible, be merely prescribed departmentally. Although we have put ourselves right by the law, I am not sure that the result is the optimum procedure.
My second point relates to article 15, which provides:
For the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of any will, deed or other like instrument a reference therein to any hospital…shall be construed as a reference to the appropriate Health and Social Services Board.
I have no intention, let alone at this time of night, of reopening the ancient sorrows that that provision calls to mind. I merely invite the Minister—I think that he will be able to respond—to assure the House that, although we are making this provision—that a bequest made to a particular hospital may be treated as if it were a bequest for the general purposes of a hospital board—nevertheless, in the administration of this power and of

moneys received in this way, the hospital boards do, as far as possible, comply with the intentions of those who make the bequests, and that as far as possible, where a bequest has been made for the benefit of a particular hospital, the boards so contrive that that hospital shall in some manner, if at all possible and reasonable, benefit as result of it.
I am sure that this is desirable and I am sure that it would have the sympathy of the House. I think it is undesirable that we should do anything—despite the overwhelming preponderance, of course, of public money—to cut off the propensity to private benevolence which, after all, is a sign of the participation and pride of the people in their hospitals and in their Heatlh Service.
Finally, I take advantage of an obiter dictum of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to draw attention to the narrow character of part II of the order. There is a difference between what is done, or permitted to be done, by juveniles and what adults do on their own responsibility at their own risk, even though it be to their own harm. There is, therefore, a justification which, of course, the House has long recognised in all kinds of legislation, for placing restriction upon what is lawful in the case of the young which do not exist on what is done, or may be done, by the adults.
That is the first distinction which I think needs to be drawn in this debate. The second, also implicit in what the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, is that there is a diffeence between actions which damage or may damage other people and actions which can only damage oneself. I literally only mention or breathe the words "seat belts" as an illustration of an action, or the omission of an action, which can only damage the person concerned.
In part II we are concerned with preventing actions, and making them criminal, which facilitate other people harming themselves by the sale of goods and appliances which, in the circumstances of the sale and the circumstances of a purchaser, cause harm. This is harm done to another person, and it is the whole purpose of the criminal law to prevent—or, if it cannot prevent, to punish—the harming of one member of society by another. I think that these are


valid distinctions which justify what we are doing in part II of the order.
While in the correct context of article 5 one realises that the notion is grotesque of policemen primarily occupying themselves in snooping around to catch somebody smoking when he is under 16, it is perfectly obvious that in the context of part H of the order that power, and it is only permissive—"may seize"— is given to the police as a means of helping in the enforcement of the central provision, which is the provision on sale.

Mr. Kilfedder: Since, as I understand, the English Act has failed to stop children or young persons from smoking, what hope has the right hon. Gentleman that this draft order will have any different effect?

Mr. Powell: In that respect the English Act, or the Great Britain Act, is no different from a great many other Acts which have not terminated the evils at which they are aimed. But that is not a reason on which any of us—even the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)—would argue for taking the prohibitions, on the sale of liquor and the rest, off the statue book, just because they have not eliminated the mischiefs at which they were aimed.
No one supposes that smoking by juveniles will be brought to an end. The question is whether it is likely, on the whole, to be diminished over the years by this provision. My opinion is that it is, and I hope that the order will be accepted by the House.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Carter: When I was shown this order for the first time last week, I was told that it was non-controversial and that perhaps it might go through rather quickly.

Mr. Kilfedder: Who told the hon. Gentleman that?

Mr. Carter: Members of my own Department, actually—all Ulstermen. I had my doubts then, and the debate has confirmed them. However, the vast majority of hon. Members have supported the principal part of the order, which attempts to restrict the sale of tobacco to young people. With all the doubts which hon. Members have expressed—and I would be the first to accept them—I think that

most people have welcomed the order which, after all, mirrors legislation which we have in Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) congratulate the Ulster Cancer Foundation on pressing the Government to implement the legislation in Northern Ireland. We are grateful for the part that it played. We place great importance on the voluntary health bodies in Northern Ireland, and on this occasion we were only too happy to respond as quickly as we have—and we have responded quickly—to its request.
He asked a question, which other hon. Members raised, about the use of the word "apparently" rather than strictly defining the age at which tobacco should not be sold to children. This is purely a legal approach. Apparently, it is perhaps more beneficial in the long run to leave the matter as wide as this, to give discretion to the person who sells tobacco or tobacco products, than to define the age strictly. Again, this is a mirror of what we do in Great Britain. I could send the hon. Gentleman a lengthy legal explanation of precisely why we have moved in this manner, but it is precisely the same argument which was adopted when the legislation was passed for Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) asked questions relating to a number of aspects of the order, and I shall deal with one or two of them. I do not have much time to deal with other points which hon. Members raised, and if I leave out any points I shall reply by letter. He asked about vocational training and what constituted vocational training. As I pointed out, this will be the subject of consultation with the medical profession. We shall leave no stone unturned, or any area of professional competence unapproached, in our determination to ensure that these proposals are acceptable to everyone involved in medicine in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman, or indeed any other hon. Member, wants to be kept informed of the way in which the regulations are to be drawn up, or the sort of questions which will be involved, I am only too happy to ask my noble Friend to keep him so informed
The hon. Gentleman also asked about article 11, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I think that I can more suitably explain the questions raised by letter, and perhaps


give some idea of the voluntary organisations which may be involved. He also asked questions about family planning. I ought to point out that the provisions about which we are talking are permissive. General practitioners may prescribe methods of family planning, as is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. If someone wants to go to a doctor who will dispense family planning aids, then that doctor can be sought out.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North gave general support to the provisions of the order. He also raised an important question—the extent to which we shall try to educate children in our schools not to smoke. That is where the argument should start. On that issue I believe that I carry everyone in the House with me—even the lone dissenter, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). My noble Friend Lord Melchett will do everything he can, not only to make the teaching profession aware of the contents of the order, but to press home the dangers of smoking generally, not only to children under 16, but to everyone.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), not surprisingly, welcomed the order, as he, together with the Ulster Cancer Foundation, was instrumental in bringing it forward. I add the thanks of the Government to the congratulations that he has received. As a former teacher, he is aware of the educational aspects. I hope that hon. Members will remember that they have a part to play, even though they may have doubts about the legislation. The Government, too, have doubts. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was mentioned, and it has doubts, but, like us, it wants the sales of tobacco to children under 16 to be limited.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) gave his qualified approval, for which we are thankful.
The hon. Member for Down, North provided the interesting sight of accusing the rest of us of being hypocrites. He also accused me of being an Englishman—a charge to which I am proud to plead guilty. I had not noticed my fellow countrymen, many thousands of whom are made welcome in certain parts of Northern Ireland, being refused hospitality and support by the people in the Province. I dare say that one or two of his constituents might approve of us.
The hon. Member for Londoderry (Mr. Ross) raised certain questions that he said he had raised in correspondence with my noble Friend concerning the differential between the cost of drugs inside and outside hospitals. He also mentioned the age-old bias of the cost of drugs west of the Bann compared with the cost east of the Bann. I shall make sure that my noble Friend's attention is drawn to these matters, and that he replies as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) raised the question of what constitutes medical experience, and that will be the subject of consultation with the medical profession.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) very kindly inquired after the health of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He has come out of hospital today, and we all hope that he will soon be back to full health, and back at work in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member also raised the question of bequests to certain hospitals. I know that the detailed reply will satisfy him, but, as it is rather long, I shall write to him about it.
With all the reservations that have been expressed, most hon. Members welcome this attempt to restrict the sale of cigarettes and tobacco to children under 16. Perhaps this approach is not as watertight as we could make it, but it is a step in the right direction, and I sincerely hope that the people of the Province, particularly those who sell tobacco, will take note of what has been said this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS)

11.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
It is well known throughout Northern Ireland that my stamina is unimpaired.


I could not give the youth of Northern Ireland a better example, since I have always been a non-smoker.
This order will extend to Northern Ireland provisions similar to those of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which have been in operation in Great Britain since 1st July 1975.
It will enable persons convicted of relatively minor offences to wipe their slate clean after a specified period, provided that they are not reconvicted within that period. The order will not apply to those convicted of serious offences, such as those committed by terrorists.
While official records of a previous conviction will not be altered or destroyed, the order provides that, for most purposes in law, the ex-offender may act and must be treated as if the past conviction has not taken place.
Certain exceptions from the order will be made by means of subordinate legislation coming into force simultaneously with this order. These exceptions would provide safeguards in cases of job applications or judicial proceedings where it is essential that full details of a person's background are known.
A similar order to that now before the House was laid at the beginning of this year and was debated in the House on 6th March. During that debate the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) drew comparisons between the provisions in the draft order, which allowed subordinate legislation to be made subject to negative procedure, and the corresponding provisions in the 1974 Act which provide that similar subordinate legislation for England and Wales shall be subject to affirmative resolution.
He was particularly concerned about article 6(13), which allowed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to vary the length of the rehabilitation period after which a conviction would become "spent". That article would thus have conferred on the Secretary of State a major power and one that could have fundamentally affected a major provision of the legislation—but one subject only to negative procedure. In view of the anxiety about this point expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, I withdrew the motion to approve the original draft order.
Since then, my colleagues and I have carefully examined the arguments put forward by hon. Members to see what changes it might be desirable to make to the original draft order. I must stress, first, that we believe that there was no general defect in the drafting of that order, nor, as I told the House during the debate in March, was there any attempt at sleight of hand by the Government. The draft order was drafted in exactly the same way as all other orders dealing with reserved matters in Northern Ireland, and the arrangements it contained for subordinate legislation followed the pattern prescribed by the Northern Ireland (Modification of Enactments) Order 1973.
However, on re-examining the draft order, we believe that there is a case for making an exception. We now take the view that the nature of the power to be exercised in the particular case of article 6(13) is such that we should provide exceptionally that subordinate legislation under that article should require the approval of Parliament. Article 6(13) of the draft order now before the House provides for that. There is also a consequential amendment to article 11. The order will extend to Northern Ireland provisions similar to those of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which has been in operation in Great Britain since 1st July 1975. I have no doubt that it will be welcomed as a valuable and humane addition to the law in Northern Ireland, and I commend it to the House.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: As the Opposition gave their support to the order on 6th March, there is nothing that I need to add in detail. The House is indebted to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for making the point that he did, as a result of which article 11 has been amended. We support the order.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have a pleasant duty in taking part in the debate. It is to say "Thank you" both to the Minister of State and to the Secretary of State. I am aware from my own past experience that a junior Minister at the Dispatch Box takes upon himself no small responsibility when in the course of a debate he decides, in the light of what has been said, to withdraw


the motion that he is putting before the House on behalf of the Government. That is what the right hon. Gentleman did in the early hours of 7th March. I believe that that was a considerable parliamentary act and shows that in debating these orders we are not wasting our time and that due note and attention is paid to the arguments which we put forward.
As to the Secretary of State, to whom of course it fell, that having been done, to decide whether he should produce a new order, I thank him for the openness of mind with which he reconsidered the matter. I am sure that he was right to decide that a power which enabled him, by order, to vary the length of the rehabilitation period after which a conviction becomes spent is a power which, even in the somewhat peculiar circumstances of legislation for Northern Ireland, ought not to be exercised except with the positive assent of this House. Accordingly, the order comes before the House tonight with that important difference.
Even since March we have been making considerable progress in methods of legislating for Northern Ireland. One of the most jarring characteristics of the order in its original form was that a ministerial order in respect of Great Britain would have required the affirmative action whereas a ministerial order doing exactly the same thing in the ambit of exactly the same policy for Northern Ireland would have gone through subject only to the now very scanty negative procedure. Of course, this arises only in so far as we continue to legislate for Northern Ireland separately and by order; and in so far as Northern Ireland legislation is legislation of this House, then such a difficulty as arose six months ago could not arise again.
There is just one observation that I want to make in that context. One of the ways in which we are moving towards proper legislation for Northern Ireland is by means of what I am afraid my hon. Friends and I are getting into the habit of calling technically the theft clause, be cause I think it was first experimented with in the context of the Theft Bill. The terms of that lay down that
An Order in Council…which contains a statement that it operates only so far as to

make for Northern Ireland provision corresponding to provisions contained in this Act shall be
subject to the negative procedure. The use of that clause enables Northern Ireland Members to participate in United Kingdom legislation on all fours with their colleagues and in effect makes those Bills United Kingdom Bills.
The reason why I mention this is that I want to make absolutely certain that the words
corresponding to provisions contained
in the United Kingdom Bill would include such a matter as the control of delegated legislation. I believe that they do and I believe also that the essence of the theft clause is that identical provisions have to be made for Northern Ireland in order to attract the negative procedure. This is an important matter. It could be of significance in the future, and even if the Minister cannot tonight provide the reassurance that I hope will be forthcoming I trust that he will let us know later, because this is clearly a matter that we shall have to attend to if we are to continue to legislate in this manner for the United Kingdom as a whole.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am sure that we all join in welcoming the new Under-Secretary of State to our debates. We all heard with satisfaction the news of the improvement in the health of his colleague, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), whom we miss very much.
It is perhaps with some relief that in discussing this order we are dealing not with terrorist offences or with tobacco, but with offences which I have heard described in Northern Ireland as honest, decent crime. We are indebted both to the Minister of State and to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in consequence of whose intervention the Minister withdrew the previous order.
One of the disadvantages of the present system of direct rule is that it exposes those who administer it, and administer it conscientiously, to the temptation of procedural short cuts, if that is the word, such as the substitution of negative for affirmative procedure. This disadvantage which is attendant upon the present system of direct rule places an additional burden


of vigilance upon this House, even if it may sometimes appear to the Executive that, as the Minister of State put it in our previous debate, the House makes heavy weather of it.
In any case, I welcome the order and the further impetus that it gives towards unification of legislation throughout the United Kingdom.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I think that we are making rather heavy weather of this order. It is called the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order, but I cannot see how it will in any way rehabilitate offenders.
The order is dealing with persons who have been sentenced to six months' and up to 30 months' imprisonment. It is saying that after they have served their sentences, if they do not get into trouble again for the periods set out in table A, the rest of the community will not know that they committed an indiscretion in the first place.
One can make many arguments about this. What about a person who is sentenced to nine months' imprisonment? No one ever hears of a person being sentenced to seven months' or eight months' imprisonment. It is normally six months, and the next period is nine months. The person who is sentenced to nine months is inclined to feel rather aggrieved that the same rehabilitation period applies to him—10 years. That arises because if the sentence exceeds six months, but not 30 months, the rehabilitation period is 10 years. Table B says that if a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months, the rehabilitation period is seven years.
People not entirely in tune with what happens in this House or in the Northern Ireland Office may be inclined, on reading the purport of the order, to believe that something is being done to rehabilitate these offenders into society. But that is not so. All we are saying is that if a person does not get into trouble again for seven years following a six-month sentence, or for 10 years following a sentence in excess of six months but not exceeding 30 months, we can erase his name from the conviction book. That does little for the unfortunate person who is sentenced to imprisonment. The person who has been sentenced to nine months would

have a legitimate reason for looking askance at this provision. I see no reason for the order in Northern Ireland. There are many more serious problems with which we must deal.
The order provides that a person who is sentenced to six months' imprisonment has that conviction taken off the record after seven years. That is not worth the time that we are spending on the matter.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The Government have chosen to commend the order to the House because they wish the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom to apply to Northern Ireland. I do not believe that that is a good Act. It provides that it is an offence to mention that a person has been convicted in the past if that conviction is spent. That is a considerable contribution to a person's rehabilitation. We are legislating to give statutory protection to falsehood. Under the order, it is wrong and against the law to mention the truth, namely, that a person has been convicted in the past. That is an important matter which the House should have considered more seriously when the original measure was passed. I was almost the only hon. Member who opposed the Bill. That is why I am here tonight.
The Government have paid no attention to the record of the Act's operation and the experience of the civil and criminal courts in working it. Soon after we passed the Act the Secretary of State introduced the order which provided for exemptions. There are so many classes of exemption as to make worthless the provisions of the Act. I have no doubt that people such as accountants will be added to the list of exemptions. As it is the Act applies to very few people.
Perhaps more serious is the provision which was not fully considered by the House. Under the Road Traffic Act 1972, as amended by the 1974 Act, an endorsement on a driving licence for a drink and driving offence must remain there for 11 years. The original offence would be serious, by its very nature. But for the individual it might have been rather petty. Nevertheless, anyone who has been so convicted must bear it on his licence for 11 years. If he is a professional driver,


he will not obtain a driving job for that period because no one will employ as a driver someone who has an endorsement for such an offence.
I am told that offences involving drinking and driving are unduly prevalent in Northern Ireland. I do not know that from personal experience. I have been to the Province twice in the past 18 months, and I have observed that in respects other than terrorism the inhabitants appear to be very well behaved. But no doubt this is a serious matter because, after all, the Minister said that this did not apply to serious offences. He is quite wrong, of course. It can apply to almost every crime in the book, except one which is punishable by a life sentence, namely, murder. Any offence, apart from that, could be visited with imprisonment of less than two and a half years. I have in mind such offences as interference with children, cruelty to children and matters of that kind. All those would be covered by this order.
It follows, therefore, that we are now applying to Northern Ireland an Act with that sort of defect. It means that people who have been convicted of serious offences in Northern Ireland will be rehabilitated after the appropriate period—five, seven or 10 years, or half that if they are juveniles—and nothing can be said about their convictions. Even a mention of a conviction can give rise to an instant action for defamation and damages, and there is a criminal provision as regards revealing a conviction. But a person who had been convicted of a drinking and driving offence must bear the stain on his licence for 11 years. There must be an injustice in that.
Bearing in mind that The Guardian made a point of investigating this problem and drew attention to this injustice earlier this year, I am surprised that the Government have not taken note of it and made some attempt to put matters right as between offenders of this kind and offenders in respect of other crimes.

11.52 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will have welcomed the contributions made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). We are

glad that he has the same spirit as Ulster men and is not prepared to surrender, even when it comes to an Order in Council in this House.
I want to make a brief comment about the way in which this legislation is being handled. Although we appreciated the action of the Minister of State in withdrawing the previous draft order, it in no way helped forward how Northern Ireland is governed and legislated for at present.
We have this order before us. If we do not like one of its provisions, we have to vote against the whole order. There is no proper amending process and, although representations can be made, we can do little else. In this case representations were made, and the Minister in his wisdom was prepared to withdraw the draft order and reconsider it. If the matter had been dealt with by one of his colleagues, it may be that we would have been met with a stubborn refusal to budge. We have had experience of that with other orders. We have to be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the master's table in Ulster today, because we are not legislated for properly.
I should not like it to be thought that the consensus of Northern Ireland Members is one of happiness about the way in which we are legislated for. The only solution for Northern Ireland is a proper devolved Government with proper powers and with security in their own hands. Although congratulations were extended when a second Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was appointed, the added presence of the hon. Member concerned is not sufficient to deal with the pressing matters which are left untouched because of the present system of governing Northern Ireland.
We were glad to hear the news about the progress of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), and we trust that he will soon be back in his place on the Treasury Bench. All the people of Northern Ireland share that view. We may not agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's actions, but we do not want to see him sick or indisposed.
We also regret that, on the orders of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is no longer on the Conservative Front Bench. We admire the hon. Gentleman's stand and are always pleased


to see a man standing up for his principles, whether they are popular or unpopular. That may be the kiss of death for the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will accept lay remarks in the spirit in which they are meant.
There are serious matters in the draft order. I spoke to the Minister before the debate about the use of the word "rehabilitation" in the title. There is nothing about rehabilitation in the draft order. Some of us thought that the Minister might tell us about the rehabilitation of H block and what action he was taking on that matter, but I must not stray on to that controversial ground now.
We are making it an offence for one person to mention that another has been convicted of a criminal offence. Article 5 provides that:
no evidence shall be admissible in any proceedings before a judicial authority exercising its functions in Northern Ireland to prove that any such person has committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for any offence which was the subject of a spent conviction".
Yet it appears that that evidence can be used in courts elsewhere in the United Kingdom because the draft order also states that when a question is asked about a person's previous convictions:
the question shall be treated as not relating to spent convictions".
I do not understand that provision. Why is Northern Ireland given a special mention?

Mr. Stanbrook: The Act covers Great Britain. The draft order refers only to Northern Ireland because that is the only part of the United Kingdom to which the Act does not apply.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Although I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior knowledge of the law, the Minister will need to explain the position in detail. There will be plenty of time; for him to reply because this debate can run until 1 a.m.

Mr. Concannon: My brief sets out exactly what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, namely, that these provisions apply to Northern Ireland. I am now dealing only with Northern Ireland, and therefore the provisions have to be set out in this manner.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister now saying that no evidence will be admissible

in any proceedings before a judicial authority anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Powell: I think the effect is that if one puts this order and the Act together, they cover in all respects the whole of the United Kingdom. We thus have the extraordinary appearance that this relates only to Northern. Ireland whereas it is, as it were, filling the hole.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like this matter to be clear so that when people come to study it they will not need the superior opinions of hon. Members.

Mr. Concannon: I am receiving some marvellous help tonight. It looks as though everybody has read my brief. The right hon. Gentleman has set out the exact position and I can only confirm it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is an easy way for the Minister to get out of the problem merely to say that he agrees with another right hon. Gentleman. However, having been given the assurance that under these provisions a person from Northern Ireland will stand in every other court of the country as he will stand in a court in Northern Ireland, that satisfies me.
Article 10(2) of the order reads:
Subject to the provisions of any order made under paragraph (5), any person who, in the course of his official duties, has or at any time has had custory of or access to any official record or the information contained therein, shall be guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that any specified information he has obtained in the course of those duties is specified information, he discloses it, otherwise than in the course of those duties, to another person.
Proceedings under that article are to be instituted only by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, as is clear from article 10(8). What happens when a matter is referred to the DPP and he refuses to take action? This has happened in Northern Ireland on many occasions when people have been rightly aggrieved about certain matters and action has not been taken. The DPP may be able to argue the matter on legal niceties, but why is this exemption made in these provisions? Why cannot the person involved institute proceedings? After all, he is the one who is affected?
I am not arguing whether this is a sufficient safeguard, because we could


conduct a long debate on whether one should wipe out what a person has done. I take the view that if a man has paid the penalty for a crime that he has committed, that crime should not be held against him. But I understand that difficulties arise in judicial proceedings, because if a person continues with a life of crime the sentence of the court must be a deterrent. It must be longer if a person habitually walks in the path of crime. I understand that element, but I also believe that a person's right should be safeguarded and that he should not be in the hands of a Government Department—even a judicial department—which may be divorced from the Executive. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House why, under article 10(2), the proceedings are in the hands of the DPP.
The Minister said that terrorist crime would not be taken into consideration under the order. Surely, if a terrorist crime did not receive an appropriate sentence, it would be included in the order. I do not see how we can overrule terrorist crime. Subject to clarification and help from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Orpington, as I read article 6, it provides:
The sentences excluded from rehabilitation under this Order are—

(a) a sentence of imprisonment for life;
(b) a sentence of imprisonment or corrective training for a term exceeding thirty months".

If a person commits a terrorist crime and does not get such a sentence, it is still a terrorist crime.
The hon. Member for Orpington said that various crimes, because of certain circumstances, do not merit the same length of imprisonment. Therefore, a person who carried out the same type of crime as another person but did not go over the limit would get the benefit, whereas someone who went perhaps a month over the limit would not get the benefit.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that this is not very good legislation. It may not be very helpful to Northern Ireland, after all. I appreciate the motivation behind it. I do not think that a dark cloud should hang over a person because of one crime that he has committed. I have a record, and

I am very proud of it. I have no objection to anyone saying to me "You have been in prison". I went to prison out of a deep conviction. Indeed, I would go again. If the Government had their way, they might want to put me in prison again.
I appreciate that there are some good points in the order, but I suggest that this would have been a good time to look at the whole of the legislation before bringing it in. I realise that is not in the Minister's bailiwick. However, I suggest that, before laying draft orders which have the effect of bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, this might be a good time to look at the principal Act.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The debates on this and the previous order clearly demonstrate the danger of adopting what is advocated by the total integrationists, namely, that all Acts of Parliament should automatically apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he looked forward to the time when there would be unification of legislation throughout the United Kingdom. I suggest that he merely echoed what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) constantly says in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is an advocate of total integration, and he is not ashamed of it. He does not want to see the Stormont Parliament or the Assembly re-established. There are others who pay lip-service to the re-creation of Stormont, but they, like the right hon. Gentleman, do not want Stormont to be brought back.
We should beware of having Northern Ireland legislation automatically incorporated in English legislation. For example, some hon. Members wanted the industrial relations legislation to be applied to Northern Ireland. They wanted a clause put in stating that it applied to Northern Ireland. I objected to that being done. As it turned out, it was sensible that the legislation did not apply to Northern Ireland.
Both this draft order and the previous one are not good pieces of legislation. I agree with the criticism of this order. We should learn from experience of the working of the English enactment and consider


whether we in Northern Ireland can produce something better. I do not believe that just because it has been enacted for England or Great Britain, it is necessarily good law. It should be looked at again, and if a better law can be produced for Northern Ireland, let Northern Ireland lead the way.
The order sets out the periods of rehabilitation appropriate for every sentence imposed by the courts. What is the justification for a five-year wait for someone convicted of an offence and fined? Is it not the case that under Northern Ireland law there is a much wider list of offences for which the penalty could be a fine than is the case in England? Equally, for an offence which a short term of imprisonment would be imposed in Great Britain, the courts in Northern Ireland are more likely than not to be satisfied with the imposition of a fine.
Certainly Northern Ireland criminal legislation from 1921 to 1974 tended more towards leniency, generosity and compassion for the wrongdoer than did the equivalent English enactments—apart from crimes of deliberate violence, which never met with any sympathy from the Ulster people, of whatever religion. The Ulster people were, certainly until the outbreak of terrorism, a law-abiding community. The order, quite properly, does not provide for the rehabilitation of serious offenders, such as those engaged in terrorist offences.
What is wrong with the order is that it follows too closely the English enactment of 1974 and takes little account of the pattern of penalties imposed by the Northern Ireland courts. Where a Northern Ireland court imposes a disqualification for, say, a motoring offence, or perhaps, a drunk driving offence, it is right that the period of rehabilitation should cease with the disqualification or endorsement.
I take up what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said on this point. This is a bad part of the order, in that it does not show greater leniency for that type of offender. Where a Northern Ireland court imposes only a fine, the rehabilitation period is five years. Surely this is too long. I should have thought that three years was long enough in such a case.
What about a parent convicted and fined for failing to send his child to

school? Has he to wait five years to be rehabilitated? I regret that before introducing the order the Minister did not check carefully with the Northern Ireland enactments and the court records. Had he done so, he would have found that, by and large, the courts in Northern Ireland are less likely to impose severe penalties, and less likely than are courts in England to find themselves dealing repeatedly with the same offender. Despite the fearful atrocities committed by Irish Republicans in recent years, the population as a whole is peaceful and law abiding.
People should show compassion towards those convicted of "ordinary" offences. The doctrine of "never forgive and never forget" cannot be acceptable in an enlightened and progressive community which believes in dealing with an offence and accepting a person back into the community once he has paid the penalty. Such a person should then be helped to start afresh. Certainly, it is only compassionate that after a period of rehabilitation the person should have the slate wiped clean. There can be very few who would quibble with giving a fresh start to a person who wishes to lead a decent life again.
On that basis, I welcome the order, but the Government would have been wiser if they had looked at the anomalies in the English Act and seen how it worked and how it could have been improved. Then we should have had something that might have provided an incentive to wrongdoers who have been sentenced, and have paid a penalty to go straight.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Concannon: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in the debate on the previous order, sometimes people will advise us "Tonight you will have very little difficulty and you will be away very early." I often reply "You do not know Northern Ireland", or "You have not been in on as many discussions on Northern Ireland as I have or, you would be very wary about making such predictions".
The present position in Northern Ireland is that there is no chance for anybody to wipe the slate clean. The order gives us the same opportunity as there is within the rest of the United Kingdom.
My Home Office colleagues have already explained to the House that as the law has been in operation in Great Britain for about three years, they are about to undertake a review of the whole subject. That will cover some of the points raised tonight.
Hon. Members have not, thank goodness, asked me to withdraw the order. I do not think I could have gone through that again, no matter what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. Through the right hon. Gentleman's efforts, we shall now be four-square with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom, and when the Great Britain measure is reviewed we shall be able to review our legislation at the same time.
The purpose of the order is to make it easier for people to live down minor offences committed at some time in their past. A criminal record can be a bar to employment, and the social stigma attached even to a minor offence such as shoplifting is such that fear of exposure can haunt a person for the rest of his life. The order helps offenders to wipe their slate clean.
In Northern Ireland we have not had that chance. The order will be of particular benefit to young people, so many of whom in Northern Ireland have committed offences through immaturity and have changed their outlook as they have grown older.
As I have said, when the experience of the Great Britain Act is built upon we shall be able to go forward in unison. We shall have been learning from the experience of the rest of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to our Northern Ireland debates. When I heard that he would take part I knew of his history as the only hon. Member who opposed the Great Britain measure, and I thought that I had enough trouble without welcoming him. But he has served a useful purpose tonight, and I hope and trust that the hon. Gentleman will come to other Northern Ireland debates, not keeping us up too long at night, but giving us the benefit of his undoubted wisdom in these matters.
Everyone has given a general welcome to the order. There is nothing more I wish to say. I do not think that the right

hon. Gentleman wishes to pull me into the minefield of the usual arguments that we have, but I have noted what he said. As he rightly assumed, I shall deal with his points in writing.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the final part of my speech, namely, the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Mr. Concannon: As a general rule, public prosecutions must be authorised and initiated by the DPP for Northern Ireland. That was the chief reason for establishing the post. It is the statutory function of the DPP to decide whether there is a prima facie case for prosecution. That is why the DPP plays a special role within the Department in Northern Ireland. I think the hon. Gentleman knows, and has said, that certain matters are treated differently in the courts in Northern Ireland. That is why he understood the reference to the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman understands the situation.
As I have said, the DPP has an integral role within the law in Northern Ireland. If I have not put that correctly —I am not a lawyer—I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall quickly correct myself by letter. What I have said is how I understand the position in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

HOUSING POLICY (LIVERPOOL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The House earlier dealt with matters concerning Scotland and Wales before moving on to Northern Ireland debates at a late hour. I make no apology for returning the House to an English region, namely, Liverpool, and housing policy in that area.
It should be made clear at the outset that the Liverpool local authority has the


right to determine housing policy, including building, allocation, rents and general administration in the Liverpool area. When the Housing Finance Act 1972 was before the House in its earlier stages, and even when it took its place on the statute book, I was opposed to it. I did not agree that central Government should intervene in the housing affairs of local authorities. The Act imposed unwarranted intervention by the Government in areas of local authority responsibility; for example, in building and allocation.
It is significant that at that time the Conservative and Liberal oppositions in Liverpool did not display any opposition to the intervention of the Government in housing by means of the Housing Finance Act. The only opposition to the Act came from the Labour benches of the city council, of which I was a member. I was a member of its housing committee. I believed that the intervention was wrong and that the Act was wrong in principle. It represented unnecessary and unwarranted intervention by the Government in a number of major housing issues.
There were penal sections in the Act which were objectionable to me and to several of my colleagues. Along with 24 members of the Labour group, I left my group to fight the Act.
I make that clear because I do not believe that in that sense there is a valid argument for saying that the Government intervention of that kind is desirable in housing. There is a responsibility on the local authority to determine its housing needs. I believe that housing allocation, rents and the administration of housing generally are matters properly given to the local authority because it is fully aware of the needs of the area. That sort of situation should continue.
But we reach a point when we have to consider whether the general approach by Government to housing—it is contained in many Acts passed by Parliament—is being carried out by local authorities. In the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 the question of rents was raised and it was said at that time—I accept that it was a different situation from the one that we are in at the moment—that, in accordance with general Government policy on wage control, there would be some degree of control over rents.
This year in Liverpool there have been two increases in rents. In May there was an average rent increase of 50p, which for the tenant could, in many cases, exceed £l or more. This month there was a second average increase of £1·20, which means that a council tenant's rent increase can go far beyond £1·20. I believe that this is part of the present policy being pursued in Liverpool of abrogating responsibility completely for continuing to make rented accommodation available to the community in that area. Yet this is a main responsibility of the local authority, and certainly of the housing committee.
Those rent increases, in my view, do not represent a realistic appraisal of the existing position of the housing revenue account. It has been said, and admitted, that the local authority is budgeting for a surplus in the housing revenue account for next year. One might then argue that, if that were the case, the present rent increase impositions were unnecessary at this time bearing in mind the Government's intention to keep down the prices of goods and services.
It appears—certainly in the view of those who occupy tenancies in Liverpool council properties—that the whole of their wage increase of 5 per cent. could be wiped out at a stroke if we were to take into account this year's increases. If we add to that the increases in public transport costs in that area, it could be argued that a considerable number of people would be affected by this process, in the sense that whatever increase they had in wages would be written off at a stroke by the increases in rents and in public transport costs.
I do not believe that that decision is accidental. I believe that it is following a line which the Government, and certainly the Minister for Housing and Construction, ought to be aware of, because there is an intention, clearly declared now in Liverpool by the present chairman, in his announcement, to "dismantle the municipal empire" which exists in Liverpool.
I have lived in Liverpool all my life. I therefore know the needs of council tenants. These needs have existed in the past and will exist in the future. I believe that the policies being pursued by the Liverpool authority are in contradiction


of the general housing principles followed by the Government and of the role which local authorities ought to play. I firmly believe that housing is a social need and that this should be recognised by local authorities. There is a private sector to deal with those who have different needs, and the private market can accommodate that need.
If a point is reached where a local authority has fulfilled its obligations with regard to rented accommodation, it could be argued that it ought to move into other areas of need; for example, building for sale rather than building for rent. But one must examine whether this would be applicable to Liverpool, although I am sure that this does not apply only to Liverpool.
At present, an estimated 15,000 families are awaiting accommodation in Liverpool. These are families awaiting their first accommodation. When one looks at the policy of the present Lib-Con local authority in Liverpool, one can see that there is almost a complete abrogation of responsibility for supplying houses for those 15,000 families awaiting accommodation.
I accept that Liverpool has had a major slum clearance problem. In the post-war years successive councils have considered that problem and dealt with it in accordance with available resources and needs. I am not saying that those decisions were perfect or that they have answered Liverpool's problems, but if one looks at the present situation in Liverpool one sees a movement away from the building of houses for rent and the accent being placed squarely on building houses for sale. Indeed, existing housing stocks are not only being offered for sale to sitting tenants but in many cases to what is known as the highest bidder.
If one looks at the housing revenue account, one sees that a house which is placed in that category robs both the ratepayer and the local authority not only of the housing stock itself but of the value of the housing stock. Even if one accepts the argument that these houses should go to the highest bidder, the fact is that if one examines the initial cost of building them as well as their present market value, one discovers that they are being sold at far below their value because of

an escape clause in the 99-year lease. That means that these properties are going out of the local authority's control and into the hands of people who certainly under the present situation, could later sell them at a profit, thereby depriving those on the housing waiting list of accommodation The whole policy is directed towards that end, as was clearly seen when the local authority decided to put up for sale some of the flats in Liverpool.
In the Estates Times of last week there was a careful breakdown of the sale of the so-called "piggeries", which was hailed as the "sale of the century" by certain people in Liverpool. In analysing that deal, we see that both the local authority and the council tenant are being conned by the measures that have been taken so far.
In the deal for the sale of the block of flats in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) before the purchaser takes over responsibility for them certain provisions must be made. One is that certain parts of the flats will be allocated for housing caretakers. Another is that additional land will be provided for the parking of cars. These provisions should have been made available to the tenants who lived there in the first place. Had they been made, the "piggeries" situation would not have arisen because of the inability of the local authority to get tenants to occupy those premises.
One might ask what the argument is about. If this block of flats presents a problem, surely it is right that the local authority should try to remove that problem and find someone in the private sector who will take it over. But the burden of responsibility for the future of those properties will remain with the local authority. It will have to provide about £89,000 a year over 48 years in interest charges on the money borrowed for the building of those flats. If that is the sale of the century, I simply do not understand the so-called business-like approach being made by the present Liverpool council towards its housing stocks.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has been responsible for introducing a Bill on homelessness. One would have thought that the first responsibility of a local authority in looking at that type of property would be to consider its possibilities for accommodating the homeless.


If the sort of deal that has been done had been done for the benefit of homeless people in the city centre—where the majority of homelessness exists—we could have seen a major breakthrough.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sorry to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech. Would he say that the "piggeries" were suitable places for homeless families to move into?

Mr. Loyden: I would not accept that they were suitable in the conditions that obtained at the time. But I am saying that everything that the present purchaser has argued that he will do to that property could have been done by the local authority. It has been argued that in blocks of flats of this kind there is a need for some sort of supervision—for caretakers and for other provisions. It is an abrogation of responsibility to sell off housing stock that will cost Liverpool £89,000 a year for 48 years without paying any regard to homelessness in the city. I accept that in the conditions in which those people found themselves it would not have been proper to have offered them that accommodation. It is wrong to argue that the homeless should be accommodated in inferior accommodation. It has been indicated, however, that that is what must happen before the properties are taken over.
In housing policies, a local authority has an obligation and responsibility first to the waiting list, which in Liverpool numbers 15,000 to 16,000 families. The indiscriminate sale of council houses, which is the policy in Liverpool, denies the families in the constituencies of myself and my hon. Friends the chance of getting out of the unsuitable accommodation in which they live. They cannot be moved into what we call relets, because those relets will probably be put up for sale. So in that respect the Government have a responsibility. Of course, it is the responsibility of local authorities to deal with the housing problem. But when matters arise such as have arisen in Liverpool, the responsibility passes to the Government.
What is happening to housing in Liverpool must be a matter of concern to the Minister and the Department. The provision of housing in Liverpool has reached the point where the needs for thousands of people who are awaiting

accommodation are being disregarded. It means that people living in unsuitable accommodation in high rise flats and elsewhere are not being catered for.
Building for rent is also something upon which the Government ought directly to influence local authorities. Liverpool has made poor provision from rate support for building for rent. In the latest period, about £6,000 was allocated in the housing revenue account to support housing via the rates. That compared with about £11 million in Manchester and £14 million in Glasgow. Glasgow's housing problems are comparable with those of Liverpool. This is a complete abdication of housing policy by Liverpool.
I make no apologies for declaring my interest as a council tenant. I should not have been housed were it not for local authority provision of housing. I therefore understand the problems of living in apartments and tenements in a slum area of Liverpool. There will be a continuing need for rented accommodation in an area of high unemployment.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that Government influence will be brought to bear on Liverpool's housing policy.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Robert Parry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) on raising this important issue. It is a pity that we can debate the subject for only half an hour. It would have been better had we had longer to debate the disastrous policies of the Liberal-Conservative alliance in the local authority.
I represent an inner dockland area of Liverpool. Over the years, under Liberal control of the local authority, tenants in my constituency have been hammered by rent policy. Three years ago some rents in my constituency were increased by the then Liberal-controlled council by as much as £5 a week. The increase referred to by my hon. Friend means that in some cases in Liverpool rents will be increased by 30 per cent. or more. This will be the second increase in six months. I am a critic of the Government's 5 per cent. pay policy. How can I support a policy of a 5 per cent. increase in wages for my constituents when they have had


imposed upon them the second rise in rents in less than six months?
I should like to discuss Liverpool's far-reaching problems but I do not have the time. The building for sale and the sale of council houses is a complete disgrace when we have 15,000 people on the waiting list and when the housing department in Liverpool has at least 45,000 outstanding repairs to carry out. In Liverpool the council tenant is the whipping boy of Liberal policies. The Liberals are increasing rents and not carrying out repairs. They are building for sale in prime spots in the centre of Liverpool. Liverpool is not carrying out its job as a housing authority.
I have been attacked personally and privately by the leader of the Liberal Party in Liverpool. The Liberals in Liverpool are a disgrace to the great traditions of the old Liberal Party. I have already written to Mr. Speaker seeking his ruling on the question of a breach of parliamentary privilege. I will, in my own time, if necessary in the House, use privilege to expose some of the Liberal leaders in Liverpool, because some of their lies and morals are a disgrace and make Peyton Place look like Coronation Street.

12.47 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): In the very few minutes remaining, may I say that Liverpool has a very serious problem in housing as in other things? We have a real interest in ensuring that sensible and realistic policies are followed. The local council is by law the provider of housing. It is not for the Government to assert that they know best what is suitable for each area. Nevertheless, the Government have an overall interest in housing and we watch very closely the activities of the various local authorities.
My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) have criticised the council's building programme, especially the level of building for rent. There is no doubt that the scale of public sector building has fallen in the city over the past two or three years. This has been true of other areas. This year Liverpool expects to make a start on 855 dwellings and to complete almost 800. Since 1st January

1978 the city has accepted tenders for 922 dwellings and it hopes to reach about 1,000 in tenders accepted by the end of the year.
The proposed building programme over the next five years amounts to about 10,000 houses, comprising 3,000 council homes for rent, another 3,000 housing association dwellings, 2,000 in the special "building for sale" scheme, and another 2,000 by ordinary private development. The supply of homes for rent will therefore exceed those in the "building for sale" scheme and, indeed, exceed the total of those built in the private sector as a whole. The real question is how far this programme will meet the genuine housing need. That question can be answered only in the context of the whole housing stock—what exists, what is wanted in types and tenure of housing.
It may be fair to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston has said, that if we exclude building for sale, the new building programme is insufficient to meet the needs arising from the present clearance programme, let alone the needs of those on the housing waiting list. These needs are, to some extent, met by relets and by the continued improvement of council stock, which remains a major element of the city's strategy. But if the council pursues its strategy of building for sale, it will be necessary to ensure that build-for-sale contributes to the easing of pressure on the city's council stock, and whilst I note that in the first completed scheme at Stanfield Road sales of many of the homes have been to people in housing need—whether from clearance areas, improvement areas, or council tenants on the waiting list—it will demand continued vigilance to ensure that this continues to be the case.
The Government are not against building for sale—we encourage home ownership—but certainly not at the expense of those who cannot afford to purchase. Only the local council—or possibly the housing associations—can look after them.
I am very much in sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston on the indiscriminate sale of vacant council homes. The intention of the Liberal leadership on the Liverpool city council, as reported in the Press, of "dismantling the municipal empire", is certainly dangerous.
The Government support the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, provided that the housing needs of the remainder of the local population are not thereby prejudiced. The provision of rented accommodation by local housing authorities will continue to be necessary to meet the needs of those who cannot afford to buy their own home, for many of those displaced from clearance areas and from the declining private rented sector, and those in special need.
This is particularly so in inner city areas, where experience has shown that large-scale public rented accommodation is necessary to meet genuine housing need. In some instances, it may also be possible to make a reasonable case for the disposal of difficult-to-let council housing, where this is really the only way likely to put that property to the best and fullest use.
The recent proposal to sell the three blocks known as Haigh, Crosbie, and Canterbury Heights—the so-called "piggeries"—to a firm of developers who will refurbish and resell the flats, may be a case in point. Incidentally, it will be necessary for my right hon. Friend to give his consent to this sale which will be considered on its merits once an application is submitted.
But I am bound to say that no case has been made for the wholesale disposal

of council housing for its own sake. We have heard a great deal of talk in the press about the sale of as many as 2,000 vacant homes in Liverpool, at knockdown prices. We are keeping a close watch on the situation throughout the country, not only in Liverpool.
But let us put the situation in perspective. It is my understanding that not a single house has been sold in Liverpool under these arrangements so loudly heralded in July this year. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not hesitate to amend the general ministerial consent for council house sales as and when he decides it is necessary to do so.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the rent increases levied by Liverpool this year. This year's 90p increase in Liverpool contrasts with the guideline that we issued to councils last January, indicating, as we had done for each of the two previous years, increases on average of 60p per dwelling per week.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes to One o'clock.